How much security is required for message storage and transmission?_问答_开发者

I need to implement a very secured Web Service using WCF. I have read a lot of documents about security in WCF concerning authorization, authentication, message encryption. The web service will use https, Windows Authentication for access to the WS, SQL Server Membership/Role Provider for user authentication and authori开发者_如何转开发zation on WS operations and finally message encryption.

I read in one of documents that it is good to consider security on each layer indenpendently, i.e. Transport Layer security must be thought without considering Message Layer. Therefore, using SSL through https in combination with message encryption (using public/private key encryption and signature) would be a good practice, since https concerns Transport Layer and message encryption concerns Message Layer.

But a friend told me that [https + message encryption] is too much; https is sufficient.

What do you think?

Thanks.

If you have SSL then you still need to encrypt your messages if you don't really trust the server which stores them (it could have its files stolen), so this is all good practice.

There comes a point where you have a weakest link problem.

What is your weakest link?

Example: I spend $100,000,000 defending an airport from terrorists, so they go after a train station instead. Money and effort both wasted.

Ask yourself what the threat model is and design your security for that. TLS is a bare minimum for any Internet-based communications, but it doesn't matter if somebody can install a keystroke logger.

As you certainly understand, the role of Transport-Level Security is to secure the transmission of the message, whereas Message-Level Security is about securing the message itself.

It all depends on the attack vectors (or more generally the purpose) you're considering.

In both cases, the security models involved can have to purposes: protection against eavesdropping (relying on encryption) and integrity protection (ultimately relying on signatures, since based on public-key cryptography in most cases).

TLS with server-certificate only will provide you with the security of the transport, and the client will know that the communication really comes from the server it expects (if configured properly, of course). In addition, if you use client-certificate, this will also guarantee the server that the communication comes from a client that has the private key for this client certificate. However, when the data is no longer in transit, you rely on the security of the machine where it's used and stored. You might no longer be able to assert with certainty where the data came from, for example.

Message-level security doesn't rely on how the communication was made. Message-level signature allows you to know where the messages came from at a later date, independently of how they've been transferred. This can be useful for audit purposes. Message-level encryption would also reduce the risks of someone getting hold of the data if it's stored somewhere where some data could be taken (e.g. some intranet storage systems).

Basically, if the private key used to decrypt the messages has the same protection as the private key used for SSL authentication, and if the messages are not stored for longer time than the connection, in that case it is certainly overkill.

OTOH, if you've got different servers, or if the key is stored e.g. using hardware security of sorts, or is only made available by user input, then it is good advice to secure the messages themselves as well. Application level security also makes sense for auditing purposes and against configuration mistakes, although personally I think signing the data (integrity protection) is more important in this respect.

Of course, the question can also become: if you're already using a web-service that uses SOAP/WSDL, why not use XML encrypt/sign? It's not that hard to configure. Note that it does certainly take more processor time and memory. Oh, one warning: don't even try it if the other side does not know what they are doing - you'll spend ages explaining it and even then you run into trouble if you want to change a single parameter later on.

Final hint: use standards and standardized software or you'll certainly run into crap. Spend some time getting getting to know how things work, and make sure you don't accept ill formatted messages when you call verify (e.g. XML signing the wrong node or accepting MD5 and such things).