Pagecrypt does the same thing, but with the Web Crypto API. More (including a sample repo) at https://render.com/blog/static-site-auth-pagecrypt.
Password protect a static HTML page
91–100 of 294 posts
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#92Should have used the WebCrypto API instead of the crypto-js npm package. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Crypto_...
What is the major difference? Isn't crypto-js still secure?
I don't know what "secure" means. Is their implementation of OFB correct? Probably. But using OFB mode is itself a problem. From what I can see, crypto-js implements no authenticated modes, and exposes all sorts of crufty old things nobody should be using. The parent comment suggesting WebCrypto is correct in this case. Avoid crypto-js.
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> CBC is far easier to implement... Never implement your own cryptography. Edit: In fact an incorrect implementation of CBC mode famously caused a vulnerability in Microsoft's ASP.NET in 2010 ( https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securityb... ). The margin for error is small and even subtle mistakes or incorrect design can cripple security. Even Microsoft got it wrong once (although they handled remedi…
Or... you can have a more nuanced viewpoint and note that CBC is really, really, really easy to implement, and _really_ doesn't fall into that category of discussion. The reason you don't implement your own block ciphers is because side-channel attacks are damn near impossible for normal programmers to understand. Especially timing attacks. But block-modes of operation? Some of them are really easy. I've ever heard o…
[deleted]
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> CBC is far easier to implement... Never implement your own cryptography. Edit: In fact an incorrect implementation of CBC mode famously caused a vulnerability in Microsoft's ASP.NET in 2010 ( https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securityb... ). The margin for error is small and even subtle mistakes or incorrect design can cripple security. Even Microsoft got it wrong once (although they handled remedi…
Or... you can have a more nuanced viewpoint and note that CBC is really, really, really easy to implement, and _really_ doesn't fall into that category of discussion. The reason you don't implement your own block ciphers is because side-channel attacks are damn near impossible for normal programmers to understand. Especially timing attacks. But block-modes of operation? Some of them are really easy. I've ever heard o…
> Or... you can have a more nuanced viewpoint
The nuanced viewpoint is never implement your own cryptography.
> Its so stupid simple I don't think that even a novice would make a critical error.
Ask Microsoft about that one: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securityb...
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#95If you have to run javascript it is not a static page anymore. I've seen a lot of this particularly weird overloading of "static HTML" lately. Static HTML, or static webpage, is meant to describe the experience from the person who is trying to look at the page. It does not describe the experience of the dev. Using a dynamic script or application to generate a static html page that requires no JS execution is a static…
> If you have to run javascript it is not a static page anymore. I've seen a lot of this particularly weird overloading of "static HTML" lately. Static HTML, or static webpage, is meant to describe the experience from the person who is trying to look at the page. It does not describe the experience of the dev. I don't think this has been the common meaning of "static page" for at least 10 years. From Wikipedia [0]: >…
OP said static HTML page though, that very much means something only using static as opposed to dynamic HTML.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_HTML
"DHTML allows scripting languages to change variables in a web page's definition language, which in turn affects the look and function of otherwise "static" HTML page content after the page has been fully loaded and during the viewing process. Thus the dynamic characteristic of DHTML is the way it functions while a page is viewed, not in its ability to generate a unique page with each page load.
By contrast, a dynamic web page is a broader concept, covering any web page generated differently for each user, load occurrence, or specific variable values. This includes pages created by client-side scripting and ones created by server-side scripting (such as PHP, Python, JSP or ASP.NET) where the web server generates content before sending it to the client."
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#96I'm not a cryptographer, but I'm pretty sure that CBC ( https://github.com/robinmoisson/staticrypt/blob/main/lib/cry... ) should be replaced with GCM ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SubtleCrypt... ) since this is not a stream. https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/184305/why-woul... (also, use the built-in WebCrypto API instead of the crypto-js package)
I don't know what "being a stream" has to do with anything (you should virtually always use "stream" modes of AES); the meaningful distinction between CBC and GCM is that GCM authenticates the ciphertext, so you can't tamper with it.
> so you can't tamper with it.
... if the API provided is correctly designed, and either the language made it practical to design the API in a misuse-resistant way /or/ the programmer was actually careful and used it properly.
We both know it's way more likely the problem in your actual system is "Oops, we use the bogus plaintext here despite the validation error" than "Dastardly enemy cryptographers have made a breakthrough in cryptanalysis to attack our product".
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#97Wow. This is really cool. I wonder if it would be possible to kind of build a site with personal pages etc for different user each encrypted by their own password
Like domain.com/user1 and domain.com/user2 each are encrypted but with their own passwords. So user 1 can only visit his own page and not other users.
(I know there would be much easier to just do a traditional webapp but as a concept it is super cool).
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or... you can have a more nuanced viewpoint and note that CBC is really, really, really easy to implement, and _really_ doesn't fall into that category of discussion. The reason you don't implement your own block ciphers is because side-channel attacks are damn near impossible for normal programmers to understand. Especially timing attacks. But block-modes of operation? Some of them are really easy. I've ever heard o…
> Or... you can have a more nuanced viewpoint The nuanced viewpoint is never implement your own cryptography. > Its so stupid simple I don't think that even a novice would make a critical error. Ask Microsoft about that one: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securityb...
That's a Padding Oracle vulnerability, not a CBC error.
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#99The downside to this method is that since the resulting cryptographic hash and salt have to be in the resulting file, so there is nothing stopping someone from pulling the hash/salt out and bruteforcing it locally (as opposed to being able to ratelimit login attempts on a server) if they are so inclined and have the required resources.. which may not be that much in the way of resources as the tool uses 1000 iteratio…
The linked readme agrees with that
https://github.com/robinmoisson/staticrypt#is-it-secure
Re: Password protect a static HTML page
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or... you can have a more nuanced viewpoint and note that CBC is really, really, really easy to implement, and _really_ doesn't fall into that category of discussion. The reason you don't implement your own block ciphers is because side-channel attacks are damn near impossible for normal programmers to understand. Especially timing attacks. But block-modes of operation? Some of them are really easy. I've ever heard o…
You keep saying "the Galois Field" as if that was a thing. It's GCM. The components of GCM are CTR mode and the GMAC authentication code, which is based on GHASH. If you're afraid of Galois fields, you don't get to use AES at all! Nobody should be implementing any of these primitives themselves, very much including CBC, which, as you saw downthread, left both you and the author of this project with an insecure crypto…
> You keep saying "the Galois Field" as if that was a thing
You're kidding, right? You've never looked at how GCM-mode works? The entire set of math is inside of the GF(2^128) field. That's why its called a Galois Counter Mode.
I don't think anyone should be implementing their own GCM mode. Its very subtle and potentially full of traps. CBC on the other hand is pretty dumb and simple, and surprisingly secure and robust
> Vulnerabilities in CBC systems were for a long time during the 2000s the most common crypto vulnerabilities on the Internet. There are more things that go wrong with CBC mode than just forgetting to authenticate it!
If they're so common, you shouldn't have much of an issue naming one such vulnerability.