Is it safe to expose OpenID links to other users? - php

I recently implemented OpenID for a game I'm making (Google only at this time), and I'm using lightopenid. I'm asking for minimal information back from the user (on purpose), and when they successfully authenticate, I'm passed back a long URL that looks like this https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/ud (I think that's pretty close to what it looks like, I don't have access to the database right now) with a bunch of random characters after it. I'm using this URL as the document ID in my database for fast retrieval on log in.
I'm getting to the point where I'd like to add player profiles on the site, but to do that, I'd need to publicly expose this long URL to other players.
My question is, is the URL I get back from Google safe to show other users, or do I need to find another field to expose to the user?

Knowing someone's OpenID identifier has mostly the same security implications as knowing their login. The only difference is that an OpenID identifier is a url that points to some server, so knowing it would theoretically allow a malicious user to attack the identity endpoint (i.e. that server) - but that's not a security issue for your site.
Publishing it should be mostly safe, but whether it's a good idea is another matter. A human readable string (for example, a pseudonym) might be a better choice for a user identifier.
That said, some sites consider their users' logins a secret - most don't, but that's a choice you have to make yourself.

Related

How to secure save user login for long term access

I create a PHP/MySQL application that will be used to log in to the user with a username and password, but I need the user login to the system to survive even turning off the browser or restarting the device.
For this reason, I cannot rely on PHP sessions.
Of course I can use browser Cookies, but I'm afraid of being stolen.
I tried to store the generated hash in the cookies and store the login information in the database. Unfortunately, here is a big problem with the potential theft of cookies.
I also tested this hash for security against the browser version and user IP address. Unfortunately, users of the app will mainly use mobile phones (the IP address will change frequently) and hash verification only against the browser version does not seem safe to me.
Is there any way to create a secure long-term login mechanism using HTML/PHP/MySQL/...?
You can think about the problem in abstract terms: You want to recognize a user based on some data. There are two ways you can do this:
You can give some (secret) data to the user they can then show you later
You can gather some data unique to the user
Cookies are an example of 1. - but it doesn't really matter if you use cookies or some other thing like local storage in JavaScript. What you are doing is giving a value to the browser and storing it. All methods have the same risks: The value could be stolen in transit (when not using SSL) or they could be stolen in storage.
For approach 2. there are things like using the user's IP address or other pieces of data they generate "accidentally". These are however not reliable and you're often doing a trade off or a combination of 1. and 2.
For example, you can set a cookie, but on the server side validate that the IP address is the same. This gives you a little bit of additional security, but the user can't use the application on a phone now, since they'd get kicked off each time they switch WiFi / mobile networks.
If you wanted to have something even more secure, you could use an SSL client certificate stored on a HSM. But this is a tradeoff again, since it gets increasingly complex to set up and you have to distribute and manage hardware.
None of these methods help against a compromised client - ie. if the user has a trojan or other malicious software on their machine.

Is it possible to somehow get this randomly generated key for my site and access the SQL?

I have a php/js site where the information is encoded and put into the database. The encryption key for the information is randomly generated, then given back to the users after they send a post through a form. The encryption key is not stored in my database at all. A seperate, randomly generated, ID is formed and stored in the database, used to lookup the item itself before deciphering it.
My question is, is it possible at all to look through the logs and find information that would reveal the key? I am trying to make it impossible to read any of the SQL data without either being the person who has the code (who can do whatever he wants with it), or by a brute force attack (unavoidable if someone gets my SQL database)?
Just to re-iterate my steps:
User sends information through POST
php file generates random ID and access key. The data is encrypted with the access key then put in the php database with the ID as the PRIMARY KEY.
php file echos just the random ID and the access key.
website uses jQuery to create a link from the key and mysite.com?i=cYFogD3Se8RkLSE1CA [9 digit A-Ba-b09 = ID][9 digit A-Ba-b09 = key]
Is there any possibility if someone had access to my server that can read the information? I want it to be information for me to read the messages myself. The information has to be decodable, it can't be a one way encoding.
I like your system of the URL containing the decryption key, so that not even you, without having data available only on the user's computer, will be able to access.
I still see a few gotchas in this.
URLs are often saved in web server logs. If you're logging to disk, and they get the disk, then they get the keys.
If the attacker has access to your database, he may have enough access to your system to secretly install software that logs the URLs. He could even do something as prosaic as turn logging back on.
The person visiting your site will have the URL bookmarked at least (otherwise it is useless to him) and it will likely appear in his browser history. Normally, bookmarks and history are not considered secure data. Thus, an attacker to a user's computer (either by sitting down directly or if the computer is compromised by malware) can access the data as well. If the payload is desirable enough, someone could create a virus or malware that specifically mines for your static authentication token, and could achieve a reasonable hit rate. The URLs could be available to browser plugins, even, or other applications acting under a seemingly reasonable guise of "import your bookmarks now".
So it seems to me that the best security is then for the client to not just have the bookmark (which, while it is information, it is not kept in anyone's head so can be considered "something he has"), but also for him to have to present "something he knows", too. So encrypt with his password, too, and don't save the password. When he presents the URL, ask for a password, and then decrypt with both (serially or in combination) and the data is secure.
Finally, I know that Google's two-factor authentication can be used by third parties (for example, I use it with Dropbox). This creates another "something you have" by requiring the person accessing the resource to have his cell phone, or nothing. Yes, there is recourse if you lose your cell phone, but it usually involves another phone number, or a special Google-supplied one-time long password that has been printed out and stashed in one's wallet.
Let's start with some basic definitions:
Code Protecting data by translating it to another language, usually a private language. English translated to Spanish is encoded but its not very secure since many people understand Spanish.
Cipher Protecting data by scrambling it up using a key. A letter substitution cipher first documented by Julius Caesar is an example of this. Modern techniques involve mathematical manipulation of binary data using prime numbers. The best techniques use asymmetric keys; the key that is used to encipher the data cannot decipher it, a different key is needed. This allows the public key to be published and is the basis of SSL browser communication.
Encryption Protecting data by encoding and/or enciphering it.
All of these terms are often used interchangeably but they are different and the differences are sometimes important. What you are trying to do is to protect the data by a cipher.
If the data is "in clear" then if it is intercepted it is lost. If it is enciphered, then both the data and the key need to be intercepted. If it is enciphered and encoded, then the data, the key and the code need to be intercepted.
Where is your data vulnerable?
The most vulnerable place for any data is when it is in clear the personal possession of somebody, on a storage device (USB, CD, piece of paper) or inside their head since that person is vulnerable to inducement or coercion. This is the foundation of Wikileaks - people who are trusted with in confidence information are induced to betray that confidence - the ethics of this I leave to your individual consciences.
When it is in transit between the client and the server and vice versa. Except for data of national security importance the SSL method of encryption should be adequate.
When it is in memory in your program. The source code of your program is the best place to store your keys, however, they themselves need to be stored encrypted with a password that you enter each time your program runs (best), that is entered when you compile and publish or that is embedded in your code (worst). Unless you have a very good reason one key should be adequate; not one per user. You should also keep in-memory data encrypted except when you actually need it and you should use any in-memory in-clear data structures immediately and destroy them as soon as you are finished with them. The key has to be stored somewhere or else the data is irrecoverable. But consider, who has access to the source code (including backups and superseded versions) and how can you check for backdoors or trojans?
When it is in transit between your program's machine and the data store. If you only send encrypted data between the program and the data store and DO NOT store the key in the data store this should be OK.
When it is stored in the data store. Ditto.
Do not overlook physical security, quite often the easiest way to steal data is to walk up to the server and copy the hard drive. Many companies (and sadly defence/security forces) spend millions on on-line data security and then put their data in a room with no lock. They also have access protocols that a 10 year old child could circumvent.
You now have lovely encrypted data - how are you going to stop your program from serving it up in the clear to anyone who asks for it?
This brings us to identification, validation and authorisation. More definitions:
Identification A claim made by a person that they are so-and-so. This is usually handled in a computer program by a user name. In physical security applications it is by a person presenting themselves and saying "I am so-and-so"; this can explicitly be by a verbal statement or by presenting an identity document like a passport or implicitly by a guard you know recognising you.
Validation This is the proof that a person is who they say they are. In a computer this is the role of the password; more accurately, this proves that they know the person they say they are's password which is the big, massive, huge and insurmountable problem in the whole thing. In physical security it is by comparing physical metrics (appearance, height etc) as documented in a trusted document (like a passport) against the claim; you need to have protocols in place to ensure that you can trust the document. Incidentally, this is the main cause of problems with face recognition technology to identify bad guys – it uses a validation technique to try and identify someone. “This guy looks like Bad Guy #1”; guess what? So do a lot of people in a population of 7 billion.
Authorisation Once a person has been identified and validated they are then given authorisation to do certain things and go to certain places. They may be given a temporary identification document for this; think of a visitor id badge or a cookie. Depending on where they go they may be required to reidentify and revalidate themselves; think of a bank’s website; you identify and validate yourself to see your bank accounts and you do it again to make transfers or payments.
By and large, this is the weakest part of any computer security system; it is hard for me to steal you data, it is far easier for me to steal your identity and have the data given to me.
In your case, this is probably not your concern, providing that you do the normal thing of allowing the user to set, change and retrieve their password in the normal commercial manner, you have probably done all you can.
Remember, data security is a trade off between security on the one hand and trust and usability on the other. Make things too hard (like high complexity passwords for low value data) and you compromise the whole system (because people are people and they write them down).
Like everything in computers – users are a problem!
Why are you protecting this data, and what are you willing to spend to do so?
This is a classic risk management question. In effect, you need to consider the adverse consequences of losing this data, the risk of this happening with your present level of safeguards and if the reduction in risk that additional safeguards will cost is worth it.
Losing the data can mean any or all of:
Having it made public
Having if fall into the wrong person’s hands
Having it destroyed maliciously or accidently. (Backup, people!)
Having it changed. If you know it has been changed this is equivalent to losing it; if you don’t this can be much, much worse since you may be acting on false data.
This type of thinking is what leads to the classification of data in defence and government into Top Secret, Secret, Restricted and Unrestricted (Australian classifications). The human element intervenes again here; due to the nature of bureaucracy there is no incentive to give a document a low classification and plenty of disincentive; so documents are routinely over-classified. This means that because many documents with a Restricted classification need to be distributed to people who don’t have the appropriate clearance simply to make the damn thing work, this is what happens.
You can think of this as a hierarchy as well; my personal way of thinking about it is:
Defence of the Realm Compromise will have serious adverse consequences for the strategic survival of my country/corporation/family whatever level you are thinking about.
Life and Death Compromise will put someone’s life or health in danger.
Financial Compromise will allow someone to have money/car/boat/space shuttle stolen.
Commercial Compromise will cause loss of future financial gain.
Humiliating Compromise will cause embarrassment. Of course, if you are a politician this is probably No 1.
Personal These are details that you would rather not have released but aren’t particularly earth shaking. I would put my personal medical history in here but, the impact of contravening privacy laws may push it up to Humiliating (if people find out) or Financial (if you get sued or prosecuted).
Private This is stuff that is nobody else’s business but doesn’t actually hurt you if they find out.
Public Print it in the paper for all anyone cares.
Irrespective of the level, you don’t want any of this data lost or changed but if it is, you need to know that this has happened. For the Nazi’s, having their Enigma cipher broken was bad; not knowing it had happened was catastrophic.
In the comments below, I have been asked to describe best practice. This is impossible without knowing the risk of the data (and risk tolerance of the organisation). Spending too much on data security is as bad as spending too little.
First and most importantly, you need a really good, watertight legal disclaimer.
Second, don’t store the user’s data at all.
Instead when the user submits the data (using SSL), generate a hash of the SessionID and your system’s datetime. Store this hash in your table along with the datetime and get the record ID. Encrypt the user’s data with this hash and generate a URL with the record ID and the data within it and send this back to the user (again using SSL). Security of this URL is now the user’s problem and you no longer have any record of what they sent (make sure it is not logged).
Routinely, delete stale (4h,24h?) records from the database.
When a retrieval request comes in (using SSL) lookup the hash, if it’s not there tell the user the URL is stale. If it is, decrypt the data they sent and send it back (using SSL) and delete the record from your database.
Lets have a little think
Use SSL - Data is encrypted
Use username/password for authorisation
IF someboby breaks that - you do have a problem with security
Spend the effort on fixing that. Disaster recover is a waste of effort in this case. Just get the base cases correct.

How do I authenticate users with a site API?

I want to build an API for users to build applications that easily interact with a site, and I was wondering what the best way to authenticate users would be.
Taking a look at other API's a lot of them have the user send the username and password as a GET parameter over a HTTPS connection. Is this the best way to go about it? Or are there other methods that I should look into or consider?
I've seen OAuth been tossed around and it looks like a good solution, but just for a simple API is it overkill?
You can use API key's. Generate a unique hash tied to an account upon request. Then check that the key is a valid key. As long as the API doesn't have any major security issues with someone using someone else's key then Authorization isn't needed. If there is a problem with someone using someone else's key then Authentication would be justified.
This is usually achieved with cookies.
The client sends their username and password with a POST request to your API (do not use GET, that's insecure). If the credentials are acceptable, then generate a random, unique session key, store it on your side and send it in a cookie back to the client (see setcookie()).
When the client now makes further requests, they send the session key cookie with the request. Check $_COOKIE for the session key if it matches a stored key on your side; if yes, that means the user authenticated.
Take note that this minimal example is vulnerable to brute-force attacks trying to guess valid session keys. You need to log invalid keys that clients send in their cookies and block their IP address for some period of time to prevent this.
Username / password in a GET isn't a great way to do this because you're potentially exposing the whole user account for hijacking even if the API has more limited functionality than logging into the site. So it's good practice to separate concerns between Web-site login and API access.
I'm not sure which case you're in but:
If the users are business customers of somekind who are embedding some type of widget or code in another website then it's probably best to use an API key which is scoped to the referrer domain (much like Google Maps does).
If they are end-users who won't know anything about the API but are going to be using Apps built by third parties then oAuth is likely to be your best bet, otherwise your users might literally be giving their usernames/passwords to unknown third parties. It's more complex but likely to be worth it in the long run.
To get a bunch of this stuff out of the box you can use something like 3scale (http://www.3scale.net) and it'll handle most of it for you (disclaimer, I work there so adjust for bias!) or there are open source libraries for oAuth in most languages (in PHP Zend-OAuth component might do the job for you).

Considerations in making auto_incremented user id visible?

I've noticed that SO and other sites use the auto-incrementing primary key of the user table as a publicly viewable user id (at least I assume this is what they are doing). In the case of SO, the user's profile can be viewed if you know or can guess their user id.
What are some things to consider before implementing a similar style of user id generation? I am developing a non-commercial app that relies on the concept of "friends" in assigning various permissions between users, but I'd like all users' basic profiles to be viewable at a simple url such as app.com/users/userid. More detailed profile information would only be accessible to "friends" of that user who have been confirmed by that user.
I guess my question is this does the "guessability" of a user ID indicate anything about the inherent security of a system like this or, is that all in the way that individual features are actually implemented? Is there anything I might not be considering about this that would make it unwise? Anything I should absolutely avoid doing with these user ids?
A note: I have no concern for "competitors" knowing or guessing how many users I have based on the number of the most recent user or the rate of change between users.
OWASP - Insecure Direct Object References
Gives a pretty good treatment of the subject. In fact, I highly recommend OWASP in general for security guidelines when developing web applications. I always evaluate my web projects against the TOP 10 security threats found on the site.
It's not a problem at all. In fact, I'd almost say the opposite: if you're having to obscure the params in the URL for security then you're doing it wrong; the security should be handled in the code.
From your question, it looks like you're already thinking about security the right way, so you should be fine with the primary key in the URL.
Having a primary_key which stores no information (like an auto_incremented id) is also good because it will never change. If you're putting info like the username in URLs you'll either want to never implement people being able to edit their usernames, or cope with the broken links that may be left when they do (remember they may be on sites other than yours).
The only info having the auto_incremented id in your URLs could leak is that one user will know if they were a user before or after another. This is unlikely to be a concern (and might not be reliable anyway).

Historical security flaws of popular PHP CMS's?

I'm creating a PHP CMS, one that I hope will be used by the public. Security is a major concern and I'd like to learn from some of the popular PHP CMS's like Wordpress, Joomla, Drupal, etc. What are some security flaws or vulnerabilities that they have they had in the past that I can avoid in my application and what strategies can I use to avoid them? What are other issues that I need to be concerned with that they perhaps didn't face as a vulnerability because they handled it correctly from the start? What additional security features or measures would you include, anything from minute details to system level security approaches? Please be as specific as possible. I'm generally aware of most of the usual attack vectors, but I want to make sure that all the bases are covered, so don't be afraid to mention the obvious as well. Assume PHP 5.2+.
Edit: I'm changing this to a community wiki. Even though Arkh's excellent answer is accepted, I'm still interested in further examples if you have them.
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Description :
The basic idea is to trick a user to a page where his browser will initiate a POST or GET request to the CMS you attack.
Imagine you know the email of a CMS powered site administrator. Email him some funny webpage with whatever you want in it. In this page, you craft a form with the data used by the admin panel of the CMS to create a new admin user. Send those data to the website admin panel, with the result in a hidden iframe of your webpage.
Voilà, you got your own administrator account made.
How to prevent it :
The usual way is to generate random short-lived (15mn to hour) nonce in all your forms. When your CMS receive a form data, it checks first if the nonce is alright. If not, the data is not used.
CMS examples :
CMS made simple
Joomla!
Drupal
ModX
More information :
On the wikipedia page and on the OWASP project.
Bad password storing
Description :
Imagine your database get hacked and published on something like wikileak. Knowing that a big part of your users use the same login and password for a lot of websites, do you want them to be easy to get ?
No. You need to mitigate the damages done if your database datas become public.
How to prevent it :
A first idea is to hash them. Which is a bad idea because of rainbow tables (even if the hash is not md5 but sha512 for example).
Second idea : add a unique random salt before hashing so the hackers has to bruteforce each password. The problem is, the hacker can compute a lot of hash fast.
So, the current idea is to make it slow to hash the passwords : you don't care because you don't do it often. But the attacker will cry when he gets from 1000 hash generated per ms to 1.
To ease the process, you can use the library phpass developped by some password guru.
CMS examples :
Joomla! : salted md5
ModX : md5
Typo3 : cleartext
Drupal : switched to phpass after this discussion.
More information :
The phpass page.
Cross Site Scripting (XSS)
Description
The goal of these attacks, is to make your website display some script which will be executed by your legitimate user.
You have two kind of these : persistent or not. The first one comes usually from something your user can save, the other count on parameters given by a request sent. Here is an example, not persistent :
<?php
if(!is_numeric($_GET['id'])){
die('The id ('.$_GET['id'].') is not valid');
}
?>
Now your attacker can just send links like http://www.example.com/vulnerable.php?id=<script>alert('XSS')</script>
How to prevent it
You need to filter everything you output to the client. The easiest way is to use htmlspecialchars if you don't want to let your user save any html. But, when you let them output html (either their own html or some generated from other things like bbcode) you have to be very careful. Here is an old example using the "onerror" event of the img tag : vBulletin vulnerability. Or you have the old Myspace's Samy.
CMS examples :
CMS made simple
Mura CMS
Drupal
ModX
More information :
You can check wikipedia and OWASP. You also have a lot of XSS vector on ha.ckers page.
Mail header injection
Description :
Mail headers are separated by the CRLF (\r\n) sequence. When you use some user data to send mails (like using it for the From: or To:) they can inject more headers. With this, they can send anonymous mails from your server.
How to prevent it :
Filter all the \n, \r, %0a and %0d characters in your headers.
CMS examples :
Jetbox CMS
More information :
Wikipedia is a good start as usual.
SQL Injection
Description :
The old classic. It happen when you form a SQL query using direct user input. If this input is crafted like needed, a user can do exactly what he want.
How to prevent it :
Simple. Don't form SQL queries with user input. Use parameterized queries.
Consider any input which is not coded by yourself as user input, be it coming from the filesystem, your own database or a webservice for example.
CMS example :
Drupal
Joomla!
ModX
Pars CMS
More information :
Wikipedia and OWASP have really good pages on the subject.
Http response splitting
Description :
Like e-mail headers, the http headers are separated by the CLRF sequence. If your application uses user input to output headers, they can use this to craft their own.
How to prevent it :
Like for emails, filter \n, \r, %0a and %0d characters from user input before using it as part of a header. You can also urlencode your headers.
CMS examples :
Drake CMS
Plone CMS
Wordpress
More information :
I'll let you guess a little as to where you can find a lot of infos about this kind of attack. OWASP and Wikipedia.
Session hijacking
Description :
In this one, the attacker want to use the session of another legitimate (and hopefully authenticated) user.
For this, he can either change his own session cookie to match the victim's one or he can make the victim use his (the attacker's) own session id.
How to prevent it :
Nothing can be perfect here :
- if the attacker steal the victim's cookie, you can check that the user session matches the user IP. But this can render your site useless if legitimate users use some proxy which change IP often.
- if the attacker makes the user use his own session ID, just use session_regenerate_id to change the session ID of a user when his rights change (login, logout, get in admin part of the website etc.).
CMS examples :
Joomla! and Drupal
Zen Cart
More information :
Wikipedia page on the subject.
Other
User DoSing : if you prevent bruteforcing of login attempt by disabling the usernames tried and not the IP the attempts come from, anyone can block all your users in 2mn. Same thing when generating new passwords : don't disable the old one until the user confirm the new one (by loging with it for example).
Using user input to do something on your filesystem. Filter this like if it was cancer mixed with aids. This concern the use of include and require on files which path is made in part from the user input.
Using eval, system, exec or anything from this kind with user input.
Don't put files you don't want web accessible in web accessible directory.
You have a lot of things you can read on the OWASP page.
I remember a rather funny one from phpBB. The autologin cookie contained a serialized array containing a userId and encrypted password (no salt). Change the password to a boolean with value true and you could log in as anyone you wanted to be. Don't you love weaktyped languages?
Another issue that phpBB had was in an regular expression for the highlighting of search keywords that had a callback (with the e modifier), which enabled you to execute your own PHP code - for example, system calls on unsecure systems or just output the config file to get the MySQL login/password.
So to sum this story up:
Watch out for PHP being weaktyped ( md5( "secretpass" ) == true ).
Be careful with all code that could be used in a callback (or worse, eval).
And of course there are the other issues already mentioned before me.
Another application level security issue that I've seen CMSes deal with is insufficiently authorizing page or function level access. In other words, security being set by only showing links when you are authorized to view those links, but not fully checking that the user account is authorized to view the page or use the functionality once they are on the page.
In other words, an admin account has links displayed to go to user management pages. But the user management page only checks that the user is logged in, not that they are logged in and admin. A regular user then logs in, manually types in the admin page URI, then has full admin access to the user management pages and makes their account into an admin account.
You'd be surprised how many times I've seen things like that even in shopping cart applications where user CC data is viewable.
The biggest one that so many people seem to either forget or not realise is that anyone can post any data to your scripts, including cookies and sessions etc. And don't forget, just because a user is logged in, doesn't mean they can do any action.
For example, if you had a script that handles the adding/editing of a comment, you might have this:
if ( userIsLoggedIn() ) {
saveComment( $_POST['commentid'], $_POST['commenttext'] )
}
Can you see what's wrong? You checked that the user is logged in, but you didn't check if the user owns the comment, or is able to edit the comment. Which means any logged-in user could post a comment ID and content and edit others' comments!
Another thing to remember when providing software to others is that server set ups vary wildly. When data is posted you may want to do this, for example:
if (get_magic_quotes_gpc())
$var = stripslashes($_POST['var']);
else
$var = $_POST['var'];
So so many..
A number of answers here are listing specific vuls they remember or generic "things i worry about when writing a webapp", but if you want a reasonably reliable list of a majority of reported vulnerabilities found historically, then you wouldn't do much worse than to search the National Vulnerability Database
There are 582 vulnerabilities reported in Joomla or Joomla addons, 199 for Wordpress and 345 for Drupal for you to digest.
For generic understanding of common webapp vuls, the OWASP Top Ten project has recently been updated and is an essential read for any web developer.
A1: Injection
A2: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
A3: Broken Authentication and Session Management
A4: Insecure Direct Object References
A5: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
A6: Security Misconfiguration
A7: Insecure Cryptographic Storage
A8: Failure to Restrict URL Access
A9: Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
A10: Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards
Four big ones in my mind:
using exec on untrusted data/code (or in general)
include-ing files from remote URL's for local execution
enabling register globals so that get and post variables
get variable values automatically assigned.
not escaping db entered data/ allowing SQL injection attacks
(usually happens when not using a DB API layer)
Disallow POST from other domain/IP So Bots cant login/submit forms.
People, the biggest security breech, is the human stupidity. Trust, review code. You need a special team, which will review anything that added as an extra code in your application, cms's problem are the outsource, the incomings, WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, and other popular cms, like default installations, they are really in a very good point secure. The problem is coming when you leave people to add extra code in your application, without a good review (or better, without penetration testing). This is the point where WordPress and Joomla have the weakness, there re so many plugin n theme devs, there are so many approvals,hundreds of outdated plugins n themes outhere.... So imho, if you are able to build a strong team, a good security plan, train your contributors, and learn them how to code secure, and with all the other comments before mine, then you will be able to move on and say :ei hi that's my cms, and it's a bit more secure than all the other cms on the net ;)
Here's a potential pitfall for forum admins especially, but also anyone who codes up a form with a dropdown selector but doesn't validate that the posted response was actually one of the available options.
In college, I realized that the user's 'country' selector in phpBB had no such validation.
In our school forum, Instead of 'United States' or 'Afganistan', my country could be ANYTHING, no matter how silly, or filthy. All I needed was an html POST form. It took my classmates a few days to figure out how I had done it, but soon, all the 'cool kids' had funny phrases instead of countries displayed under their usernames.
Going to a geek college was awesome. :D

Categories