Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature request: store authentication verifier in hashed format #7937

Closed
appliedprivacy opened this issue Jun 16, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #10157
Closed

Feature request: store authentication verifier in hashed format #7937

appliedprivacy opened this issue Jun 16, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #10157

Comments

@appliedprivacy
Copy link
Contributor

appliedprivacy commented Jun 16, 2019

Description

It is a common security best practice to store authentication/password verifiers on the server side in a hashed format to reduce the impact / increase the effort for attackers should they be able to gain access to the configuration data. This could happend via an unsecured backup file for example.

There are multiple places where plaintext password/key verifiers are stored:

https://dnsdist.org/reference/config.html#setKey
https://dnsdist.org/reference/config.html#webserver

and maybe other locations?

This issue is about supporting a strong hashformat to protect password verifier / to avoid storing plaintext passwords/keys in the server configuration where possible.

Default filesystem permissions of configuration files should not allow any access to "other".

@James-TR
Copy link
Contributor

The setKey configuration seems to be used by the console https://dnsdist.org/guides/console.html, so you can do "dnsdist -c" and connect to the running process without having to provide the key on the command line. Storing in a hashed format would break this for local clients unless you provided an alternate configuration file.

@Habbie
Copy link
Member

Habbie commented Jun 18, 2019

Yes, setKey is a shared secret, I don't think we can hash that one, but the webserver secret is a candidate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants