Skip to main content

Nginx secure link with node.js

Serving static files is a natural task for web servers. They, especially ones, having asynchronous architecture (like Nginx), are very good at such tasks.
However, usually there is an additional security logic, which should restrict access to files you've published. IIS, for example, offers deep integration with application layer, which allows custom .NET "middleware" logic injection into the request pipeline.
Node.js applications are very often published behind Nginx for various reasons and, with the help of Nginx "Secure Link" module, it's possible to offload static file serving tasks from node.js to Nginx, even if the files are not public. This module uses "shared secret" string (known to Nginx and the application) and expects a hash, based on this secret, to be present in the request to decide whether to proceed or return an error.

Secure Link module may work in 2 alternative modes (
  1. Simpler mode, based on "secure_link_secret" directive. Hash value in the request is based on concatenation of link to file and the secret. In this mode we can only check whether client was given hash for particular link
  2. More complex mode, based on 2 directives ("secure_link" and "secure_link_md5"). In this mode, we can restrict validity time of the hash and some other client-specific parameters, known to Nginx (like IP address or a header value)
This article focuses on the second mode, since it is more powerful and therefore more useful. Following is an example of Nginx configuration, using this mode:

It expects requests like /img/file.doc?h=[hash]&e=[expire time]. Lines in the configuration should be read as follows:
(1) When accessing /img/.. links, Nginx will first perform the following checks
(2) "secure_link" directive describes the way Nginx should extract generated hash value and (optionally) link expire time from the request. In this example, we specify that hash value and link expire time should be extracted from query string arguments "h" and "e" respectively.
(3)"secure_link_md5" directive describes what hash value Nginx expects to see in the request. "$secure_link_expires" variable contains expire time extracted from the request (value of "e" argument in our case). So, to generate correct hash value, we should hash concatenation of link expire time (seconds since "Epoch time"), request uri, space and "shared secret" ("6q3R9jhzG5" in our case)
(5-7) if hash comparison fails, return 404 error status
(9-11) if hash comparison succeeds, but expire time is less than server time, return 404 error status
(13) otherwise, continue with the request

Before browser (or other user agent) can request a file from Nginx, application server needs to generate a hash to be passed to the web server (along with expire time, used in hash generation). Following is a node.js function which generates such hash:

It's important to note that generated hash is expected to be in base64url format, which is ensured by the last line of the function.


Nginx secure link module may not have the best documentation, but once you understand it, it's very easy to use. I have found it useful, because it allowed to significantly decrease number of requests to node.js server and database hits.

MD5 algorithm has a bad reputation in security and, of course, its a bad idea to use it to store passwords. However, if you have long-enough secret (which should be longer, than in this example), it is absolutely impractical to use any of primitive techniques (like brute force or rainbow tables) to find secret out of hash value. Collision attack is not relevant either, since user agent does not present a secret to be hashed, but hash value itself. That means, that using md5 is a reasonably secure solution for secure links. Also, its performance is very important for this module to be useful.


Popular posts from this blog

Lost promises

I love Promises . I think they make modern JavaScript possible, especially on the server side. But promises are, you know, promises and some of them are literally lost! I would even say that lost promises are, to a certain degree, the buffer overflow of JavaScript. OK, it's not as widespread and it hasn't cost as many billions of dollars, but it still may be as subtle, as difficult to notice and just as devastating. At least I have encountered this issue a few times and it works like that: In the code above we simply forget to add "return" keyword before call to sideEffect3 function. This is totally OK, except when you rely on the fact that the Promise returned from giveMePromise is resolved after "side effect 3" can be observed. In our case, Promise was given, but it was lost. That sideEffect3  function is trying in vain, because it's work will never be used. I think this is just a danger of asynchronous code and such errors can only be detecte

Performance of Redis sorted set operations

I was working on a feature recently, which involved several Redis "remove from sorted set" operations. Target production environment sorted sets are expected to be small and most of these calls would be trying to remove items, which do not exist in the sets. Although ZREM operation has documented LON(N) time complexity, ZSCORE has documented constant time complexity. This led me to believe, that Redis might have constant time complecity for ZREM calls when values to be removed do not exist in the set (if ZSCORE "knows" if item is NOT in the set in constant time, ZREM can do the same, right?). Not in this case, apparently. ZSCORE documented constant time complexity is actually misleading (as many cases of asymptotic time complexity documentation for small data sets). Redis stores small sorted sets (up to 128 items by default) as "ziplists", which are essentially linked lists, optimized for memory consumption. Browsing through Redis source code confirms th