Chameth.com - posts like shoring-up-sshd, utility-user-stories, why-you-should-be-using-https but not debugging-beyond-the-debugger

On the utility of user stories

2021-10-16T00:00:00Z

User stories are a staple of most agile methodologies. You’d be hard-pressed to find an experienced software developer that’s not come across them at some point in their career. In case you haven’t, they look something like this:

As a frequent customer,
I want to be able to browse my previous orders,
So that I can quickly re-order products.

They provide a persona (in this case “a frequent customer”), a goal (“browse my previous orders”) and a reason (“so that I can quickly re-order products”). This fictitious user story would probably rank among one of the better ones I’ve seen. More typically you end up with something like:

As a user,
I want to be able to login,
So that I can browse while logged in.

This doesn’t really provide a persona or any proper reasoning. It’s just a straight-forward task pretending to be a user story. If this is written in an issue then it provides no extra information over one that simply says “Allow users to login”. In fact, because it’s expressed so awkwardly I’d argue that it’s worse.

This kind of task-disguised-as-a-user-story problem becomes more obvious when people try to write technical tasks in the same way:

As a developer,
I want to refactor the JobFactory,
So that I can work with it more efficiently in the future.

This just says “Refactor the JobFactory”. If you wrote that in a ticket you’d probably feel bad for not describing it very well, but somehow when it’s dressed up as a user story it feels more valuable.

Does the user really want that?

One thing that really irks me about user stories is that it lets you twist your business objectives into sounding like they’re the user’s idea: the story becomes a post-hoc justification for a task you decided was required.

Say you’re making a mobile app for an online book store, and your team for whatever reason has a target of increasing the number of users who view the daily book-of-the-day offer. Maybe you do some interviews and users tell you they forget to check in each day to see what the offer is. How can you funnel more users there?

As a mobile app user,
I want to receive a push notification whenever a new book-of-the-day is available,
So that I have the chance to buy the book.

Some users probably do want such a thing, but I’d argue the vast majority of them do not. Imagine if every app on your phone alerted you whenever there was a new deal, or popped up a dialog whenever you went near a physical shop they had vouchers for…

Obviously in the cold reality of capitalism businesses make money by doing things not strictly in the interests of users¹. When written up like this it becomes so painfully disingenuous, though. Despite writing a user story that starts with the words “As a user”, you’re not really putting yourself in the user’s shoes.

Who even is the user?

One of the big benefits of user stories comes from using personas to describe users. It’s also one of the things that’s rarely actually done, at least in my experience. Looking at Google Trends you can see the rise of searches for “user story” as agile slowly takes over the world, but the movement in searches about personas is very slight:

Graph showing relative search frequency for user stories against user personas

A lot of the time stories are just written with “As a user”, or have some adjectives tacked on to the start (“as a mobile user”, “as a logged-in user”). The best I’ve ever seen in the wild was specifying the class of user like in the example at the start: “as a frequent customer”, or “as a visually impaired user”.

The problem with using these classes is it requires you to come up with them when you’re writing the story. Maybe one day you think about visually impaired users, but the next you don’t. Maybe Bob thinks about certain classes of users, but Alice concentrates on different ones.

The ideal way to solve this is to come up with personas that all the team understand. For example:

Kiera is addicted to books. She reads across genres, and often buys books to gift to her friends and family. She has piles and piles of books to read, but that doesn’t stop her ordering more if she sees a good deal. She likes receiving new books almost as much as reading them, and opts for the fastest delivery available.
Sharon is a slow, methodical reader. She buys one book at a time when she’s close to finishing her current one, and gifts or resells her old books. She almost exclusively reads Science Fiction, and will generally read complete series from start to finish. She’s short-sighted and often struggles when using mobile phones or computers.

You’d probably want 2-4 personas that collectively represent most facets of your userbase. They can be a lot more fleshed out than these - if you search for example user personas you’ll find many beautifully presented examples that have complete backgrounds including hobbies, education levels, and so on. Even with this minimal level of detail, though, I’d argue they’re more useful than just writing things in a standard user story form.

Thinking back to the story about push notifications, writing it to use one of these two personas forces you to think about the trade-offs involved. Kiera probably would like a notification, but it would annoy and possibly confuse Sharon. This then leads you down the path of considering how to accommodate both types of user — maybe adding it as an option, or doing some fancy machine learning, etc. The conversation is now focused around the users, rather than steamrolling over them to reach a business objective.

You’re holding it wrong

The problems I’ve described are not a problem with user stories per se, but rather common issues with how they’re used. But there’s only so many times you can tell people they’re holding a tool wrong before you have to accept that maybe the tool was badly designed.

Considering features from the perspective of multiple personas is the single best thing you can possibly do to ensure you’re providing value to your users. You don’t even need to write things in the typical user story style to benefit from this.

Tacking “As a user,” to the start of all your JIRA tickets isn’t being agile, and isn’t good for users, even if it lets you tick a box somewhere. In some cases this lip-service to users is actively detrimental to them. We should be valuing users and personas over stilted templates and check-box exercises (remind you of anything?).

As a user, I want to pay more money for the things that I buy, so that the company’s CEO can afford to go to space. ↩︎

Shoring up SSHd configuration

2016-10-18T00:00:00Z

I recently came across a useful tool on GitHub called ssh-audit. It’s a small Python script that connects to an SSH server, gathers a bunch of information, and then highlights any problems it has detected. The problems it reports range from potentially weak algorithms right up to know remote code execution vulnerabilities.

This is the kind of output you get when running ssh-audit. In this particular example, I’m looking at GitHub’s SSH server and have filtered the output to just warnings and failures:

Output of ssh-audit pointing at GitHub’s SSH servers

GitHub’s a bit of a special case, as they’re trying to cope with scores of developers pushing code: they can’t disable weaker algorithms without also stopping lots of people being able to use their service. Still, from the output you can see that ssh-audit has spotted a known vulnerability (CVE-2016-076) and has a lot to say about the various types of supported algorithms.

Background: crypto algorithms used by SSH

Establishing an SSH connection is a moderately complex endeavour, and various parts involve the use of a number of different cryptographic algorithms:

The first such algorithm is the key exchange algorithm. This is the process by which the client and the server agree on a shared key that will be used later. Next comes the host-key algorithm; this is how the server proves its identity to the client. Most SSH users will be familiar with warnings like the following:

$ ssh server.example.com
The authenticity of host 'server.example.com (11.22.33.444)' can't be established.
ED25519 key fingerprint is SHA256:rPVMho1fhEkJqvgce/8iAl353dX5QkGT9F3uCFndsa.
Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?

The warning means that the SSH client doesn’t recognise the server’s key, and is asking the user to confirm it. If the key changes later, the SSH client will refuse to connect. In the warning above you can see the algorithm used by the server was ED25519.

Next up is the encryption algorithm, which handles actually encrypting the data sent over the connection. Finally comes the message authentication code algorithm, commonly referred to as ‘mac’. The mac algorithm is effectively responsible for signing each message as a proof that it came from the other party.

Following the recommendations

ssh-audit’s recommendations are pretty easy to follow. It points and shouts at a particular algorithm, and you configure SSHd to not allow it. This is a snippet from my new SSHd config, which gets no complaints from ssh-audit:

HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key
HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_ed25519_key

KexAlgorithms curve25519-sha256@libssh.org
Ciphers chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com,aes256-gcm@openssh.com,aes128-gcm@openssh.com,aes256-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes128-ctr
MACs hmac-sha2-512-etm@openssh.com,hmac-sha2-256-etm@openssh.com,umac-128-etm@openssh.com

What’s more interesting is the reasoning behind some of the algorithms removed. The ecdh-sha2-nistp series of key exchange algorithms are subject to a sidechannel attack described in a paper in 2014. Some people are also concerned about the involvement of NIST, and the potential for backdoors. Various other key exchange algorithms use too small a number of bits in the key exchange (e.g. diffie-hellman-group1-sha1, which uses 1024). Others still use known-bad hash algorithms (e.g. diffie-hellman-group14-sha1, which uses an acceptable 2048 bit modulus, but relies on SHA1 hashes). ssh-audit only treats the use of SHA1 as a warning, but there’s no compelling reason to keep it around if you’re using remotely modern clients to connect. Similarly the host-key DSA algorithm uses a 1024 bit key, so should be disabled.

Many of the rejected encryption algorithms use basically-broken algorithms (3des-cbc and arcfour for example). Some of the remaining are block ciphers with small block sizes, which makes them weak (e.g. blockfish-cbc uses a block size of 64 bits).

Many of these concerns also apply to mac algorithms (e.g. eliminating hmac-md5, hmac-sha1-etm@openssh.com, etc, as they use weak hash algos). Of particular note, OpenSSH supports the hmac-ripemd160 and hmac-ripemd160-etm@openssh.com algorithms. RIPEMD160 isn’t that common but, like SHA1, is considered to be weak. One other concern with mac algorithms is the order in which the encryption and mac attachment are performed. Encrypt-then-mac is the preferred way of doing it (i.e., the message is encrypted, then a MAC of the ciphertext is attached). The default used in SSH is encrypt-and-mac, where the mac of the plaintext is attached after encryption. Attaching the plaintext mac potentially leaks information (a mac is designed to provide integrity, not confidentiality, after all). The encrypt-then-mac algorithms are indicated by the -etm suffix.

Other changes

In addition to the ssh-audit inspired changes, I took the time to review the rest of my standard SSH configuration. The config touches on a few areas; I’m only going to highlight a couple of them:

  PubkeyAuthentication yes
  RhostsRSAAuthentication no
  HostbasedAuthentication no
  ChallengeResponseAuthentication no
  PasswordAuthentication no

Here all authentication methods other than public key are disabled. A decent key (used in combination with good crypto algorithms!) is drastically harder to brute force than a very good password. It’s also less prone to accidentally being copied into the wrong place, provided to the wrong server, etc.

- UsePrivilegeSeparation yes
+ UsePrivilegeSeparation sandbox

Switching UsePrivilegeSeparation from ‘yes’ to ‘sandbox’ tells OpenSSH to employ kernel sandbox mechanisms on the unprivileged process. This adds another layer of defence in case there’s a severe exploit in OpenSSH itself.

An unexpected side effect

After reconfiguring OpenSSH, all of my servers stopped reporting SSH brute force attempts. Every day prior to the change saw hundreds of connections and, after rate limiting and automatic banning blocked a fair chunk, about two dozen unsuccessful login attempts. With the new algorithm selections in place, there were still hundreds of connections, but no failed login attempts at all. A closer look at the logs showed this:

fatal: Unable to negotiate with 1.2.3.4 port 55025:
  no matching key exchange method found. Their offer:
    diffie-hellman-group14-sha1,
    diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha1,
    diffie-hellman-group1-sha1

Apparently not a single one of the clients trying to bruteforce their way in supported the one key exchange algorithm I now allow. I guess at some point they’ll be updated with a modern crypto stack, but until then it’s going to be oddly peaceful…

Why you should be using HTTPS

2016-06-17T00:00:00Z

The EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere logo

One of my favourite hobbyhorses recently has been the use of HTTPS, or lack thereof. HTTPS is the thing that makes the little padlock appear in your browser, and has existed for over 20 years. In the past, that little padlock was the exclusive preserve of banks and other ‘high security’ establishments; over time its use has gradually expanded to most (but not all) websites that handle user information, and the time is now right for it to become ubiquitous.

Why use HTTPS?

There are numerous advantages to using HTTPS, both for the users of a website and for the operator:

Privacy

The most obvious advantage is that HTTPS gives your users additional privacy. An insecure (HTTP) request can potentially be read by anyone on the same network, or the network operators, or anyone who happens to operate a network along the path between the user and the server.

Users on shared WiFi networks (such as those in coffee shops, hotels, or offices) are particularly vulnerable to passive sniffing by anyone else on that network. If the network is open (as is frequently the case) then anyone in radio range can see exactly what the user is up to.

Integrity

HTTPS also helps to maintain the integrity of your site. With a plain HTTP request, there’s nothing to stop anyone in between the server and the user from modifying the content of the request or the response. This is a frequent tactic used by annoying WiFi gateways (such as the ones you’d find in a hotel), dubious ISPs who want to serve you extra adverts, or just plain old nefarious attackers.

If you’re trying to convey some kind of information to users (and if you aren’t, why exactly are you running a website again?) it seems beneficial to both you and them if the information arrives as you intended, rather than in a modified form due to someone or something tampering with it.

Security

If your website has any kind of authentication, or session identifiers, it becomes extremely vulnerable to an attacker monitoring the traffic and stealing the credentials. This was starkly demonstrated in 2010 when Firesheep was released. This tool allowed anyone to quickly and automatically hijack social media accounts of anyone on the same network who was using HTTP to access them.

Even if your login pages are served over HTTPS, if you send a single session ID cookie over HTTP (such as a page you decided wasn’t particularly ‘important’) then an attacker can probably spoof the user’s session and gain full access to their account. Again, in the case of open WiFi networks that could be anyone in radio range.

Search engine rankings

Some search engines use HTTPS as a signal in their ranking algorithms. Google announced in 2004 that it was using the presence of HTTPS as a small positive signal, but that it may strengthen that signal over time as more and more websites switch to using a secure transport. It’s not unthinkable that at some point in the future there will be HTTPS-only search engines.

But… But… But…

There are lots of excuses for not implementing HTTPS. Most of them are either misguided or outdated.

It’s too expensive and/or complicated

In the past, getting HTTPS certificates was a pain. A number of free suppliers have existed for a while but the process for getting their certificates wasn’t particularly straight forward, and many imposed arbitrary restrictions on the certificate parameters. Even once you had the certificate, you had to fiddle about with your HTTP server configuration to make it work, remember to manually get a new certificate when the old one expired, and lots of other annoying busywork.

With the arrival of Let’s Encrypt, all that changed. You can retrieve and deploy a free HTTPS certificate with two or three commands. Renewal can be handled completely automatically with a single command executed by cron.

There’s no point; nothing on my site is sensitive

You might not think your content warrants privacy, but can you speak for everyone who accesses it? Even content that seems mundane to you — such as travel advice, or technical writing — could be used to build up a profile of a user. If an attacker is monitoring traffic in a coffee shop and sees a user looking at travel advice and weather forecasts for a foreign country, he could use that information to plan a burglary knowing that the user will be away. Similarly, some content which is perfectly mundane to you may actually be very sensitive in other countries with repressive governments. HTTPS makes it much harder for these people to snoop on traffic.

From another angle, if you’re offering any kind of information, instructions, or especially file downloads, there’s a severe risk to users if the content is modified on its way to them. An evil sysadmin could rewrite your travel advice to suggest visiting the local drug dealer’s hangout, or replace your download with a malware-infested version.

HTTPS is slower, uses more resources, etc

Back in 1995 this might have been a valid argument. Enabling HTTPS on a modern server will make an almost negligible difference to performance. If you also enable HTTP/2 (which most implementations only support over HTTPS), it’s likely to actually use fewer resources, and result in a faster, smoother experience for your users. HTTP/2 was designed to work with HTTPS, and designed with modern requirements and networking techniques in mind.

CloudFlare have an excellent demonstration of the benefits of HTTP/2, and it can show speed improvements of 2-3x in a typical environment. On top of being faster, HTTP/2 uses fewer connections which results in less resource overhead on both the server and the client.

So what are you waiting for?

If you run a website and aren’t using HTTPS, give it a try.