This invention relates to security and privacy. More particularly it relates to site and user authentication.
Fake web sites are frequently used to trick users into revealing confidential information. Site “seals” with a logo which the user associates with security help give users a sense of comfort when visiting a legitimate web site. This is analogous to a Better Business Bureau sticker in a physical storefront. However, on the web it is trivial for a fake site to copy such a seal. Trying to detect sites with such counterfeit seals and to then take down these sites is a slow process. Another alternative, having seals which require a user to click on them to verify authenticity expects users to be far more proactive and careful then they have proven to be. A somewhat more secure alternative is to install a toolbar that examines each page the user downloads and checks whether the source is a known malicious site. The disadvantage of this approach is that the user has to download and install a toolbar. Another approach that has proven not to work is the use of the SSL infrastructure wherein users are expected to navigate a maze of locks, green bars and frequent cryptic error messages, in order to ascertain the legitimacy of a site. When combined with the rise of man in the middle (MITM) and man in the browser (MITB) attacks, it is safe to say that current site authentication techniques on the web simply do not work.
The converse problem of user authentication to a web site is even more challenging. Most techniques for authentication like passwords and one time passwords are considered vulnerable to MITM and MITB attacks. Exacerbating the situation is the notion of single sign on or federation; namely the notion that one site will vouch for the authenticity of the user to several other sites. A single key to open several doors is certainly convenient, but if that one key is weak, then the risk has just been amplified.
The innovation described herein seeks to use a single approach to greatly increase the security of both site and user authentication.
This invention has the following objectives:
Additional objects, advantages, novel features of the present invention will become apparent to those skilled in the art from this disclosure, including the following detailed description, as well as by practice of the invention. While the invention is described below with reference to preferred embodiment(s), it should be understood that the invention is not limited thereto. Those of ordinary skill in the art having access to the teachings herein will recognize additional implementations, modifications, and embodiments, as well as other fields of use, which are within the scope of the invention as disclosed and claimed herein and with respect to which the invention could be of significant utility.
Our first innovation is to create a new method of site authentication that is not easily counterfeited. We achieve this by creating a pop-up window on the user's PC that is in communication with a security server, and where this communication channel is separate from the communication between the user's browser and whichever web site they are at. A legitimate web site embeds code in the web page which communicates to the security server from the user's desktop. The security server ensures the web site is not known to be malicious, and then signals both the web page on the user's browser, as well as the pop-up window to which it has a separate channel, that the web site is genuine. The ‘signal’ to the user can take the form of a visual cue conveying the concepts of “good site” or “bad site” or “do not know”.
Our second innovation is to strengthen the security of the signaling mechanism described above by having the security server send a random image with the signal to both the pop-up window and the user's browser. The user who sees the image in both places gets further reassurance that the web site is safe.
Our third innovation ensures that counterfeiting the pop-up window is made very difficult by having the user select a personalization image which appears in the pop-up window. An attacker who tries to pop-up a fake window is foiled as they cannot know the personalization image.
Our fourth innovation is to have the user authenticate to the security server and use the signaling mechanism described above to communicate assertions about the user's identity to the web site, thus enabling single sign on for the user.
Our fifth innovation is to have the security server provide the user with a fresh one time password for authentication into the web site, where the one time password is constructed using a secret shared between the web site and the security server, obviating the necessity of maintaining a per user shared secret which is a requirement for previous one time password mechanisms.
We will first describe the preferred embodiment for site authentication and then describe how the system can be augmented to also perform user authentication. As shown in
There are three distinct phases of operation: (i) the set-up and personalization of the pop-up window which is a one time process, (ii) the start-up of the pop-up window which happens at periodic intervals (akin to logging into a computer at each use), and (iii) The wake-up process when the user browses to a web site that can authenticate itself to the user using the security server.
For set-up the user visits a web site hosted at the security server and selects a personalization image. This image is stored locally on the user's PC using cookies, FLASH storage or similar local storage options. This is in general a one time event per user per PC, and only need be repeated if the user wants to change the personalization image, or the local storage is deleted for some reason.
Start-up occurs at periodic events. For instance this could happen once a day before the user begins browsing the web. The user can initiate the process manually, via a bookmark or bookmarklet, or by using the user's default web page mechanism. Alternately, there could be wake-up code which is triggered by the user visiting a web site that uses the system. Once the pop-up has been started it will be on the user's desktop occupying a relatively small amount of space. Typically the user will position the pop-up at a convenient location on their screen. The act of starting up the pop-up also results in the security server planting a local session object (for instance in a session cookie) on the user's PC.
A web site that wishes to participate in the system will embed on the page code to access the system. Typically this will be in the form of Javascript code within an iFrame. The code will reach out to the security server, an act that transfers to the security server, the previously planted session object. The security server checks the REFERRER or ORIGIN tag of the request from the iFrame against a known whitelist or blacklist of permitted/prohibited sites. It then responds to the iFrame and simultaneously signals the pop-up it is in communication with. The signal consists of two parts, first an indication of whether the web site is “good”, “bad”, or that the security server “does not know”. The second part of the signal is a random image that is sent (if the site is legitimate) to the pop-up and to the iFrame. For a legitimate web site the user's pop-up will have a visual cue (e.g. a green light) that the web site is “good” and will show a random image. The iFrame will also show a similar visual cue and critically will also show the same random image. If the web site was on a black list the pop-up will show a visual cue (e.g. a red light) that indicates the site is “bad”.
Attackers trying to defeat the system by creating a fake pop-up are thwarted because they will not know the personalization image. And, an attacker who tries to display the visual cue in the iFrame will not succeed as they do not know the random image that is sent to the pop-up. Finally, a counterfeit web site will not be able to manipulate the REFERRER or ORIGIN tag as it is inspected by the browser.
The communication between the pop-up and the security server can be implemented in a variety of ways. One approach would be to have the pop-up repeatedly make XHR requests with long time outs. Consequently whenever the security server has a need to send a message to the pop-up and simply opens to the currently open XHR request.
The system described above can be extended to communicate assertions about the user from the security server to the web server. We assume that the user, preferably during start-up, uses some method of authenticating to the security server. For instance the user could prove possession of credentials issued previously or use an out of band authentication technique to prove possession of a phone number. Once this has happened the security server is in a position to respond to requests for identity assertions from the web site. One way to achieve this would simply be for the web site to send the security server an assertion request, for instance via the request in the iFrame, and the security server can simply respond with the assertion. This request response could use the format of standards such as OpenID or SAML. This marries site authentication to user authentication (something that federation protocols like OpenID and SAML do not address) which provides significant security benefits.
A final innovation allows us to significantly strengthen the binding between the user, the security server acting as an Identity Provider and the web site which is the Relying Party. First, we assume that the security server and the web site have a priori agreed on a shared secret (the system is easily extended to use public key cryptography). Second, as shown in
This application is a continuation of pending application Ser. No. 12/938,161, filed Nov. 2, 2010, and entitled “A NEW METHOD FOR SECURE SITE AND USER AUTHENTICATION”, which claims priority based on Provisional U.S. Application Ser. No. 61/257,207, filed Nov. 2, 2009, and entitled “Project Seal”, the contents of these applications being hereby incorporated herein in their entirety by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
8136148 | Chayanam et al. | Mar 2012 | B1 |
8225102 | Palmer et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
20020095507 | Jerdonek | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20030028451 | Ananian | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20040030924 | Mizoguchi et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040148510 | Muller et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040210536 | Gudelj et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225878 | Costa-Requena et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040242238 | Wang et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050039054 | Satoh et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050135242 | Larsen et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050172229 | Reno et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050254653 | Potashnik et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060168259 | Spilotro | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168663 | Viljoen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060230268 | Muller et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060235795 | Johnson et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060288230 | Crall et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070006291 | Barari et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011724 | Gonzalez et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070067828 | Bychkov | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070074276 | Harrison et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070079135 | Saito | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070143845 | Jeong et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070157304 | Logan et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174904 | Park | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070186095 | Ganesan et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198437 | Eisner et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070279227 | Juels | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070283273 | Woods | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080028447 | O'Malley et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080034216 | Law | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080052180 | Lawhorn | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080109657 | Bajaj et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080120707 | Ramia | May 2008 | A1 |
20080172730 | Sandhu et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080254765 | Eliaz | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090037983 | Chiruvolu et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090093300 | Lutnick et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119754 | Schubert | May 2009 | A1 |
20090119776 | Palnitkar et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132813 | Schibuk | May 2009 | A1 |
20090210712 | Fort | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090235339 | Mennes et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090249076 | Reed et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090249077 | Gargaro et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254572 | Redlich et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090259588 | Lindsay | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090259848 | Williams et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090265768 | Labaton | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090288159 | Husemann et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090328168 | Lee | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100017860 | Ishida | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100024022 | Wells et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100041391 | Spivey et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100146611 | Kuzin et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100235897 | Mason et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100242102 | Cross et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100250955 | Trevithick et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100262834 | Freeman et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100268831 | Scott et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110153496 | Royyuru | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110161989 | Russo et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110208801 | Thorkelsson et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120005483 | Patvarczki et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120124651 | Ganesan et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
11-338933 | Dec 1999 | JP |
2002-259344 | Sep 2002 | JP |
2005-209083 | Aug 2005 | JP |
WO 2007107868 | Sep 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Gralla, P. How the Internet Works. 2006. Que, pp. 346-347. |
WOT [online]. Against Intuition Inc., 2006 [retrieved on Aug. 24, 2012]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: web.archive.org/web/20061127233933/http://www.mywot.com/en/wot/help/wot—symbols—explained/ >, pp. 1-3. |
International Search Report/Written Opinion, PCT/US2011/023525, mailed Apr. 5, 2011. |
International Search Report/Written Opinion, PCT/US2011/022486, mailed Apr. 20, 2011. |
International Search Report/Written Opinion, PCT/US2011/023528, mailed Apr. 27, 2011. |
International Search Report/Written Opinion, PCT/US2011/032295, mailed Jun. 13, 2011. |
International Search Report/Written Opinion, PCT/US2011/032271, mailed Jul. 11, 2011. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in International Application No. PCT/US 11/22482 on Jan. 26, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US2012/032840, Jun. 20, 2012. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110179472 A1 | Jul 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61257207 | Nov 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12938161 | Nov 2010 | US |
Child | 13006806 | US |