Re: [Mod-security-developers] More about ModSecurity version 3

[Felipe C. <FC...@tr...>]

Hi Christian,

Comments in-line.



On 1/7/16, 7:33 AM, "Christian Folini" <chr...@ti...> wrote:

>Felipe,
>
>Thank you for the links. In fact I missed the posts (despite your
>previous announcement). They are advertised on the ModSec website,
>but I tried to see them via http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=oL-O1iYOmSpv8oTEXO4IfnQS5FvxlTBsaW0f25tBow&s=5&u=http%3a%2f%2fblog%2espiderlabs%2ecom%2fmodsecurity
>but the ModSecurity tag is missing on the posts.


 I will investigate with the Blog admin to see what happened. In fact, the
announcement at ModSecuritiy.org should only show the blog posts with the
ModSecurity tag. It seems like it is announcing all SpiderLab's blog posts.



>Did I get it correctly, that libModSecurity is no longer
>written in C, but in C++? Does that extend on the connectors to?


The core itself is written in C++. But there is an C interface as well.
The connectors can be writing in C++ or C. Also, it can be extended via
bindings to script languages, such as Python
[https://github.com/SpiderLabs/ModSecurity-Python-bindings].

The library API documentation is writing together with the code, following
a style that can be understood by Doxygen. As you can see in the examples
bellow:

https://github.com/SpiderLabs/ModSecurity/blob/libmodsecurity/headers/modsecurity/modsecurity.h#L149-L223
https://github.com/SpiderLabs/ModSecurity/blob/libmodsecurity/src/transaction.cc#L49-L86

https://github.com/SpiderLabs/ModSecurity/blob/libmodsecurity/headers/modsecurity/transaction.h


We do have some doxygen targets on our Makefile already, but it is something
that needs to be improved.


>The Python Rule Import blogpost is even cooler. I did not think
>of this before. I know that there are options to do this with
>the Core Rules on nginx already, but now that it seems to become
>available for my platform as well, my mind is spinning madly
>thinking about use cases. This is really neat.


Yeah, that one is cool :) I guess that particular feature will extend
ModSecurity adoption. The possibility to pretty-print the rules (web,
console, whatever) is something that I think will be very popular. At
least that is what I hope.


>Please keep us posted on the progress of the work


Sure! I want to release v2.9.1 and get back to work on ModSecurity version 3
as soon as possible.


>P.S. You used to plan for a community meeting in December. That
>did not happen. Any new plans for the next meeting?


Not only the meeting but also the release for v2.9.1.

Let me make the meeting call in another email...

Br.,
Felipe “Zimmerle” Costa
Security Researcher, SpiderLabs
Trustwave | SMART SECURITY ON DEMAND
www.trustwave.com <http://www.trustwave.com/>


________________________________

This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.