Skip to main content

Base64 Encoding is NOT Cryptography

I have once again come across an IT department who were/are firmly convinced that the commercial web application that they use is secure and has encrypted user details. What it actually does is Base64 encode the password. This is not encryption and must be treated as plaintext.

So what is Base64 encoding and why do we have it? Well, a large number of popular application layer protocols are ASCII text based, i.e. they transfer plain text over the network. A good example of this is HTTP - the protocol used to transfer HTML (or Web) pages around. Originally, only text pages were sent with markup embedded to style it. However, soon other resources were added to the web including pictures, documents, etc. HTTP is designed to transfer plain ASCII text, so how do you transfer a JPEG photograph? Answer: You convert it into plain ASCII text.

The basic principle of converting a file into text is to use the data to represent an index to the ASCII character, e.g. 'A' is 63, 'B' is 64, 'a' is 97, '8' is 56, etc. So, if the first four bytes of your file are 63, 64, 97 and 56, this can be represented by 'ABa8' without loss. However, ASCII is actually only 7 bits and we usually use 8-bit bytes (because of IBM setting the standard - actually a byte was historically just the number of bits required to store a character). Also, ASCII character 13 is a carriage return, 27 is escape and 8 is backspace. These are non-printable and, worse than that, could corrupt the communications as well as remove other characters. So, we can't just do a straight conversion from bytes to ASCII.

This is where Base64 conversion comes in. We split the file up into 6-bit 'bytes', rather than 8-bit. 6 bits give us 64 possible values. These are then represented by the digits, upper and lowercase letters and a couple of symbols ensuring that they are always printable and don't cause problems. So, the Base64 encoded password is just a 6-bit 'byte' representation of an 8-bit byte password and it is trivial to convert between the two. There is no security in Base64 encoding anything. Perhaps I should repeat that again.

Base64 encoding something is not encrypting it and provides NO SECURITY whatsoever!

I am constantly surprised and disappointed that people think that Base64 encoding something will protect it. I know TLS has its problems, but why aren't all web applications using it?

The little JavaScript tool below will allow you to encode and decode Base64 encoded text to see what it's like and how simple it is. If you find Base64 encoded passwords on your network via sniffing then you can use this to decode them.



Enter Text:


Select Encoding or Decoding:



Encode | Decode
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Trusteer or no trust 'ere...

...that is the question. Well, I've had more of a look into Trusteer's Rapport, and it seems that my fears were justified. There are many security professionals out there who are claiming that this is 'snake oil' - marketing hype for something that isn't possible. Trusteer's Rapport gives security 'guaranteed' even if your machine is infected with malware according to their marketing department. Now any security professional worth his salt will tell you that this is rubbish and you should run a mile from claims like this. Anyway, I will try to address a few questions I raised in my last post about this. Firstly, I was correct in my assumption that Rapport requires a list of the servers that you wish to communicate with; it contacts a secure DNS server, which has a list already in it. This is how it switches from a phishing site to the legitimate site silently in the background. I have yet to fully investigate the security of this DNS, however, as most
13 comments
Read more

Security Through Obscurity

I have been reminded recently, while looking at several products, that people still rely on the principle of 'security through obscurity.' This is the belief that your system/software/whatever is secure because potential hackers don't know it's there/how it works/etc. Although popular, this is a false belief. There are two aspects to this, the first is the SME who thinks that they're not a target for attack and nobody knows about their machines, so they're safe. This is forgivable if misguided and false. See my post about logging attack attempts on a home broadband connection with no advertised services or machines. The second set of people is far less forgivable, and those are the security vendors. History has shown that open systems and standards have a far better chance of being secure in the long run. No one person can think of every possible attack on a system and therefore they can't secure a system alone. That is why we have RFCs to arrive at ope
Post a Comment
Read more

How Reliable is RAID?

We all know that when we want a highly available and reliable server we install a RAID solution, but how reliable actually is that? Well, obviously, you can work it out quite simply as we will see below, but before you do, you have to know what sort of RAID are you talking about, as some can be less reliable than a single disk. The most common types are RAID 0, 1 and 5. We will look at the reliability of each using real disks for the calculations, but before we do, let's recap on what the most common RAID types are. Common Types of RAID RAID 0 is the Stripe set, which consists of 2 or more disks with data written in equal sized blocks to each of the disks. This is a fast way of reading and writing data to disk, but it gives you no redundancy at all. In fact, RAID 0 is actually less reliable than a single disk, as all the disks are in series from a reliability point of view. If you lose one disk in the array, you've lost the whole thing. RAID 0 is used purely to speed up dis
Post a Comment
Read more