A common thing I’ve encountered over the years at various companies is the implicit belief that it doesn’t matter what their protocol looks like; as long as it is wrapped in SSL/TLS (say, by making sure your endpoint is an https:// server instead of http://), then your protocol is secure from hackers and prying eyes.
And if your protocol is secure from prying eyes, then the actual security of the packets being sent is somewhat immaterial; since a hacker cannot discover the format of your packets they cannot hack your system.
The justification, of course, being the standard diagram of Adam talking to Beth while Charlie is in the dark as to what’s going on:
… but …
But what if your protocol supports your app, which can be downloaded from the iTunes store for free? What if your protocol is the protocol between your web client and the back-end server? What if, for free, Charlie can get his own client?
Well, there are a number of tools out there which Charlie can use to sniff the packets between a client under his control (such as your client app running on his phone, or your web front-end running on his computer), and your back-end server. I’ve used Charles, an HTTP proxy/monitor tool to successfully sniff the contents of a packet–and Charles will even create a self-signed certificate and install it so that the SSL/TLS certificate is considered valid, so that Charles can look inside the SSL/TLS stream to read the contents of the packets.
I suspect this is how the Nissan Leaf was hacked. I’m sure there are countless other applications out there being similarly hacked.
So how do you deal with this attack?
First, realize you have a problem. Realize that simply changing to SSL/TLS will not save a poorly designed protocol. Realize that someone can easily deconstruct the packets being sent between your client and the server, and that may expose you to reply attacks and spoofing.
Second, REST is dead. I’m sorry for those who worship at the altar of REST, but if the server is purely stateless, there is no state which represents the access controls a particular user may have been granted by the server when he originally connected.
It’s not to suggest we shouldn’t strive for a REST-like protocol; if the same command is sent at different times it should yield the same results, all other things being equal. But we need to consider some server-side state in order to regulate who has access to which features or which devices. (By the way, a traditional Unix file system, on which HTTP’s ‘get’, ‘put’ and ‘delete’ verbs are modeled after, and which form the basis of the REST architectural style, also contain access control lists to guarantee someone performing a read (or ‘get’ command) has access to the file (or URI) requested. Consider your logging into your desktop computer “state” from the file system’s perspective.)
Had Nissan incorporated access controls to their application–which could have been as simple as the user logging in and receiving a connection token to be used to verify ownership of the car he is controlling–then the Nissan Leaf hack would never have happened. Simply hiding the protocol behind SSL/TLS doesn’t help, as we’ve seen above.
Third, consider encrypting sensitive data, even if it is being sent via SSL/TLS. The problem is that there are several brands of dedicated firewalls which create their own valid SSL/TLS certificate so the firewall can sniff the contents of all https:// transactions–which means if you are sending your credit card, it is possible someone’s firewall hardware has sniffed your credit card information. And in an environment where there are legal requirements to provide proper access controls (such as mandated by HIPPA), this provides an added layer of security against proxy servers which are sniffing all the packets on your network, and which may be inadvertently logging protected information.
Update: This also applies to the Internet of Things. In fact, it applies even more to the Internet of Things, given the number of devices running software that will seldom (if ever) be updated.
Flaws in Samsung’s “Smart” Home Let Hackers Unlock Doors and Set Off Fire Alarms