Jump to content

Invalid Username/Password


crusher11
Go to solution Solved by Luke,

Recommended Posts

crusher11

User couldn't remember their password. Had a couple guesses, no dice. I changed it, entered what I'd just changed it to, still no dice.

embyserver.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sa2000

I can see 401 authentication errors in the log at 17:10 and 17:11

At 17:13 you changed the password.

Authentication was ok after this but for some reason the device was not permitted and a 403 error returned

2024-05-06 17:13:22.899 Info UserManager: Authentication request for xxx has succeeded.
2024-05-06 17:13:22.899 Error Server: User is not allowed access from this device.
2024-05-06 17:13:22.899 Info Server: http/1.1 Response 403 to host52. Time: 3ms. POST http://192.168.0.2:8096/emby/Users/AuthenticateByName?format=json

Will look and see if there are any settings that might have got reset. Could you look at the server settings and see if you spot anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crusher11

Could the device have been locked out due to the failed Auth attempts, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crusher11 said:

Could the device have been locked out due to the failed Auth attempts, then?

That's how I would interpret a 403.  The question then being, if the password is successfully changed, should we eliminate that lockout as well...?  I think probably yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crusher11
11 minutes ago, ebr said:

That's how I would interpret a 403.  The question then being, if the password is successfully changed, should we eliminate that lockout as well...?  I think probably yes.

How long does the lockout last? Is there a way for me as the admin to manually override it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Solution

this looks related to device access restrictions, not login lockout related. Try granting that user access to all devices and see if that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crusher11

That solved it - not sure how it got set to only specific devices in the first place, but never mind that - but my questions regarding the length and override of the lockout remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, crusher11 said:

That solved it - not sure how it got set to only specific devices in the first place, but never mind that - but my questions regarding the length and override of the lockout remain.

One minute. It isn't designed to lock you out and require reactivating the user. Only to prevent brute force login attempts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rbjtech

This has come up before - would it not be a sensible idea to provide a different error message for the user in this scenerio ?    Clearly saying Invalid user/password is not only incorrect, but would lead you down the path of it being an Authentication problem, when it is infact an Authorisation/Access issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rbjtech said:

This has come up before - would it not be a sensible idea to provide a different error message for the user in this scenerio ?    Clearly saying Invalid user/password is not only incorrect, but would lead you down the path of it being an Authentication problem, when it is infact an Authorisation/Access issue.

The general rule in security is to not give a lot of clues to the person attempting to break in, correct...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rbjtech
4 hours ago, ebr said:

The general rule in security is to not give a lot of clues to the person attempting to break in, correct...?

Correct - but nobody is breaking into anything - this is a post Authentication check for access. - ie Authorisation.... 

If you had not authenticated, then the message about 'device access' cannot be determined anyway.

'Device Access Denied' is all it needs to say, and logout the user as it serves no purpose for them to remain logged in.  You do not say Auth was successful but it is implied.

What information have they gained from this ? - the answer is very little.

You are protecting the DEVICE at this point, not the account.

Security is a balance - in this case, I feel you have the balance wrong and you are not giving an Authenticated user a valid message about why they cannot login to this device.

If you want to be 'really' careful - then you simply say "Invalid username, password or device restriction. Please try again" on ALL responses - that way the user has gained nothing from the message but you have at least given the user some options to look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone technical enough to know, the response code is the clue as 401 is "Unauthorized" and 403 is "Forbidden".

I suppose we could translate those into different messages but a Forbidden response can come from multiple causes (lockout in which case, it IS an authentication issue, device access restriction, device limits, etc).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rbjtech
9 hours ago, ebr said:

For anyone technical enough to know, the response code is the clue as 401 is "Unauthorized" and 403 is "Forbidden".

I suppose we could translate those into different messages but a Forbidden response can come from multiple causes (lockout in which case, it IS an authentication issue, device access restriction, device limits, etc).

Lockout is not an Authentication issue - it is an Authorisation/Access issue. ;)    You have the correct credentials (thus you have authenticated), but you are being denied access because the account is unavailable.

Any un-authenticated http response should get a 401 - any un-authorised/access issue should get a 403.

All laid out in rfc7235 ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rbjtech said:

Lockout is not an Authentication issue - it is an Authorisation/Access issue. ;)    You have the correct credentials (thus you have authenticated), but you are being denied access because the account is unavailable.

Suppose the hacker was trying different passwords, getting a 401 repeatedly until the lockout hit.  Then they guess right and get the 403.  That was what I was referring to when saying it could actually be an authentication issue.  And now we've just told them they got it right...  Therefore, i would think we should return the 403 on the locked account without even trying to authenticate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rbjtech
12 minutes ago, ebr said:

Suppose the hacker was trying different passwords, getting a 401 repeatedly until the lockout hit.  Then they guess right and get the 403.  That was what I was referring to when saying it could actually be an authentication issue.  And now we've just told them they got it right...  Therefore, i would think we should return the 403 on the locked account without even trying to authenticate.

In doing so - you have also just confirmed that account exists .. without any Authentication ?

You should not be mixing Authentication and Authorisation.

If anybody Authenticates - be it via a valid known login or brute force - does not change the fact that Authentication has happended and the next 'stage' of security is to check the Authorisation.   HTTP 403 is well defined to mean Authentication has been accepted but permission to proceed further is denied.    A locked account has to be Authenticated for you to know it is locked ;) 

In any known system that I have ever used, if my account is locked - I don't get to know that before I have sucessfully Authenticated ... 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

crusher11

If you want to be vague, be vague. Don't be inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rbjtech
9 minutes ago, crusher11 said:

If you want to be vague, be vague. Don't be inaccurate.

I don't disagree - but as per the original reply from @sa2000, you originally got a 403 - so it was correctly following http standards.   It logged this, but failed to report this to the user as Device Access denied (Authorisation) - you had correctly entered the username and password, thus you were Authenticated and thus it is ok to send you this informative message.

If you were not Authenticated then you would have been sent a 401 instead regardless of the device access, which at that point, should never even have been queried. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

crusher11
On 5/8/2024 at 11:03 PM, rbjtech said:

I don't disagree - but as per the original reply from @sa2000, you originally got a 403 - so it was correctly following http standards.

Well, sure, but that's not what the error message on the screen said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rbjtech
3 hours ago, crusher11 said:

Well, sure, but that's not what the error message on the screen said.

again agreed - If they decide to fix it is anyones guess - but at least they are now sending the correct http response for incorrect Authentication (latest stable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard app should give a better error message.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...