Since this question is rather popular, I thought it useful to give it an update.
Let me emphasise the correct answer as given by AviD to
As pointed out a few times in previous comments, you must apply integrity protection to any ciphertext that you send out to the user and accept back. Otherwise the protected data can be modified, or the encryption key recovered.
Especially the PHP world is full of bad examples that ignore this (see PHP cryptography - proceed with care) but this does apply to any language.
One of few good examples I've seen is PHP-CryptLib which uses combined encryption-authentication mode to do the job. For Python pyOCB offers similar functionality.
I think that "giving away" any data even encrypted when it is about username and password is not good ... There are many JS that can sniff it ... I suggest you create in users DB table a field cookie_auth or whatever ...
after first login gather : current: browser, IP,ans some own salt key, plus your hostname var ...
create a hash and store in that field ... set a cookie ... when cookie "responds" compare all of these with the stored hash and done ...
even if someone "steal" a cookie they won't be able to use it :-)
Hope this helps :-)
feha vision.to
Why do you want to encrypt the cookie?
As I see it, there are two cases: either you give the client the key, or you don't.
If you don't give the key to the client, then why are you giving them the data? Unless you're playing some weird game with breaking weak encryption (which you're explicitly not), you might as well store the data on the server.
If you do hand the client the key, then why do you encrypt it in the first place? If you don't encrypt the communication of the key, then encrypting the cookie is moot: a MITM can look at the cookie and send you any cookie he wants. If you use an encrypted channel to the client, why the extra overhead of encrypting the stored data?
If you're worried about other users on the client's machine reading the cookie, give up and assume the browser sets good permission bits :)
So many terrifying things been said, which is true though, but let's see the bright side, a little common sense and continuous watch over your site might save you all the time.
Saving cookies is an important part of web development so one can't ignore it. But also we should avoid as much as possible; I see the use of Cookies only if I want to extends the login session even after user close the browser. If ones don't want to extends the user session beyond browser closing, then Session component should be used. Even with Session component usage one should be aware of Session Hijacking.
Anyways, back to Cookie thing; In my opinion if one's follow the following precautionary measurement, I am pretty sure we can be on the safer side.
I divide the precautionary measurement
in to two phase
Phase1: Development
path
attributeexpiration_date
secure
, httpOnly
attributesblowfish
and then use base64_encode
on top of it.Phase 2: Operation/Audit
burp
.AES (also known as Rijndael) is the most popular. The block size is 128-bits, that's only 16-bytes, and you're talking "around 100 characters".
This is touching on two separate issues.
Firstly, session hijacking. This is where a third party discovers, say, an authenticated cookie and gains access to someone else's details.
Secondly, there is session data security. By this I mean that you store data in the cookie (such as the username). This is not a good idea. Any such data is fundamentally untrustworthy just like HTML form data is untrustworthy (irrespective of what Javascript validation and/or HTML length restrictions you use, if any) because a client is free to submit what they want.
You'll often find people (rightly) advocating sanitizing HTML form data but cookie data will be blindly accepted on face value. Big mistake. In fact, I never store any information in the cookie. I view it as a session key and that's all.
If you intend to store data in a cookie I strongly advise you to reconsider.
Encryption of this data does not make the information any more trustworth because symmetric encryption is susceptible to brute-force attack. Obviously AES-256 is better than, say, DES (heh) but 256-bits of security doesn't necessarily mean as much as you think it does.
For one thing, SALTs are typically generated according to an algorithm or are otherwise susceptible to attack.
For another, cookie data is a prime candidate for crib attacks. If it is known or suspected that a username is in the encrypted data will hey, there's your crib.
This brings us back to the first point: hijacking.
It should be pointed out that on shared-hosting environments in PHP (as one example) your session data is simply stored on the filesystem and is readable by anyone else on that same host although they don't necessarily know which site it is for. So never store plaintext passwords, credit card numbers, extensive personal details or anything that might otherwise be deemed as sensitive in session data in such environments without some form of encryption or, better yet, just storing a key in the session and storing the actual sensitive data in a database.
Note: the above is not unique to PHP.
But that's server side encryption.
Now you could argue that encrypting a session with some extra data will make it more secure from hijacking. A common example is the user's IP address. Problem is many people use the same PC/laptop at many different locations (eg Wifi hotspots, work, home). Also many environments will use a variety of IP addresses as the source address, particularly in corporate environments.
You might also use the user agent but that's guessable.
So really, as far as I can tell, there's no real reason to use cookie encryption at all. I never did think there was but in light of this question I went looking to be proven either right or wrong. I found a few threads about people suggesting ways to encrypt cookie data, transparently do it with Apache modules, and so on but these all seemed motivated by protecting data stored in a cookie (which imho you shouldn't do).
I've yet to see a security argument for encrypting a cookie that represents nothing more than a session key.
I will happily be proven wrong if someone can point out something to the contrary.