Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2009-09-18 Thread ddyer
On Sep 10, 9:56 pm, Sri sripathikrish...@gmail.com wrote: If you have built your site correctly, a malicious browser cannot harm your site. Vacuously true. In practice there are huge problems if you can't trust your browser, which you can't. Lets construct a simple example. Suppose I

Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2009-09-10 Thread ddyer
Isn't any security that's based on the browser enforcing a policy essentially a sham? Or more politely, guaranteed to be ineffective against a deliberate attack. The browsers are open source, and the communications channel is unencrypted, and you don't have to use a browser at all. There are

Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2009-02-23 Thread Nitin Sawant
make the GWT more secure. so that the evil f**kers won't hack my site.. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Web Toolkit group. To post to this group, send email to

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2009-02-23 Thread Sumit Chandel
Hi Nitin, Did you recently experience a black hat who hacked your site? If so, you should post up some details about how the attack occurred and perhaps some members of the community can make suggestions about how to fix the potential security leak. In general, security for web applications,

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-12-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for the feedback Shawn and Reinier. I'm not relying on Cookies at all, the Session ID will be created by the server, it will be a large pseudo random number. The session IDs will of course expire. Interesting point about problems that could be created by restricting access to a single IP,

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-12-04 Thread Thomas Broyer
ERRATUM: On 4 déc, 10:58, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walden, you need a refresh on URIs and HTTP As Walden pointed out to me in private, I should have directed this answer towards Jason; as it's quite clear that Walden is aware of all I said ;-)

Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-12-03 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The approach I'm taking, and I'm hoping it is a good one, is to divide the operations on the server cleanly in to read and write. I'm using php on the server and GWT on the client. The client cannot execute any write operation on the server without a unique Session ID, the only way that the

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-12-03 Thread Reinier Zwitserloot
krona: If you are getting the session ID from the cookie, your web service is still vulnerable to XSRF (wikipedia it). Make GWT send the session ID in the body of requests (such as a parameter to GWT-RPC or stuff it in the JSON you're sending to your PHP). On Dec 4, 1:24 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-12-03 Thread Shawn Pearce
Also restricting a session to a single IP address can be problematic with some providers that use web proxies for their clients. I don't know if this has changed, but years ago AOL made this rather difficult as requests from clients can be routed out through multiple proxy servers. Individual

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-11-04 Thread Jason Vincent
I see your point. If the SID is invalid, either via a real attack or by session invalidation, the result is the same... I don't know who you are so please re-authenticate yourself. My project is in its early stages, so for what I thought was an attack I was just throwing an exception to kick

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-11-04 Thread Jason Vincent
Nah... I need sessions to expire like normal so that those resources can be released as users leave the site. On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:14 AM, ponthiaux eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Did you try to make cyclic call to the server to preserve the session ? with a Gwt Timer for example .

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-11-04 Thread walden
Jason, Maybe you could come up with a session-less implementation, so then you wouldn't have to worry about releasing those resources? Walden On Nov 4, 12:52 pm, Jason Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nah... I need sessions to expire like normal so that those resources can be released as

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-11-04 Thread walden
Jason, So it's a GET parameter on a POST request? Hmmm. Clever, though. Walden On Nov 4, 12:31 pm, Jason Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see your point.  If the SID is invalid, either via a real attack or by session invalidation, the result is the same... I don't know who you are so

Re: Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-11-04 Thread walden
Jason, I think false positives is a feature of this kind of security strategy, not necessarily a bad thing. How do you handle what you think is a real XSRF attack? When I use Yahoo (not often), it seems like it asks me to login a lot. But they smooth the experience with words to the effect

Discussion on security-for-gwt-applications

2008-11-03 Thread Jason
I have a question about the XSRF protection. I've implemented this by using a requestFilter which filters for the nocache.js file and sets a sid cookie with the session id as the value. Then for each RPC call I send the value of the sid cookie as a get parameter. When the session is active this