Re: [mod-security-users] Performance woes - larger JSON payloads with CRS
Brought to you by:
victorhora,
zimmerletw
Menu
▾
▴
Re: [mod-security-users] Performance woes - larger JSON payloads with CRS
|
From: <az...@po...> - 2021-04-29 18:00:15
|
I just noticed you are using CRS, so this one would be probably better:
SecRule REQUEST_BODY_LENGTH "@gt 131072" \
"id:9999999,\
phase:2,\
pass,\
t:none,\
nolog,\
ctl:ruleRemoveTargetByTag=OWASP_CRS;REQUEST_BODY"
Citát az...@po...:
> Hi,
>
> you can do this using exclusive rule, something like this (set the
> rule ID to something 'better'), length is in bytes:
>
>
> SecRule REQUEST_BODY_LENGTH "@gt 131072" \
> "id:9999999,\
> phase:2,\
> pass,\
> t:none,\
> nolog,\
> ctl:ruleEngine=Off"
>
>
>
> REQUEST_BODY_LENGTH is available from phase 2 so you cannot put this
> into phase 1.
>
>
>
> Citát Henri Cook <henri@proteus.tech>:
>
>> I think what I need here is a way to exempt the request body from any
>> scanning when it's over 128kb (my chosen upper limit)...
>>
>> I'll probably try implementing this as a phase 1 rule on Content-Length
>> unless anyone shouts there's a better way. `ProcessPartial` sounded like
>> the holy grail, but you can't partial process JSON (because it doesn't
>> parse!).
>>
>> It'd be cool to be able to fallback to a fulltext scan of the partial JSON
>> if it's >128kb, I might have a try at looking into that also (again any
>> guidance appreciated)
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Henri
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 15:24, Henri Cook <henri@proteus.tech> wrote:
>>
>>> The follow up problem to this is:
>>>
>>> Now i'm set to `SecRequestBodyLimit` 31457280 and
>>> `SecRequestBodyNoFilesLimit` 65536 and `SecRequestBodyLimitAction
>>> PartialProcess`
>>>
>>> In my mind this will process the first part of a request if it can, and
>>> ignore the rest. But:
>>>
>>> - Rule 200002 is triggered, which is saying the JSON can't be parsed.
>>> Presumably because in a large request it tries to process the beginning of
>>> the JSON and can't (because it won't parse, because the JSON is cut off so
>>> doesn't end)
>>>
>>> So I think I need to find a way to skip JSON parsing entirely when the
>>> payload is over 64kb (65536)? Does that sound right? Assuming 64kb is the
>>> limit I want to stick with. I hadn't really considered before this point
>>> that 'partial processing' of JSON was likely to be hairy but of course it
>>> makes sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 07:17, Christian Folini <
>>> chr...@ne...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Henri,
>>>>
>>>> From a security practice, this is obviously lacking, but in wider
>>>> perspective,
>>>> I see it meet "industry standard", yes.
>>>>
>>>> When I teach, I tell my student, that the worst WAF is the one that is
>>>> switched off. So if you need to compromise and you can only apply 20% of
>>>> the rules because you run the risk of business demanding it's switched
>>>> off,
>>>> then that 20% WAF is still better than no WAF.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 06:57:54AM +0100, Henri Cook wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Christian, taking this in combination with Osama's point earlier
>>>> in
>>>>> the thread that most 'big four' (AWS/GCP/Cloudflare/Azure) WAFs seem to
>>>>> limit the payload they'll scan. From my reading to 128kb
>>>> (cloudflare+azure)
>>>>> or 8kb (aws+gcp) I think I'll be able to resolve our particular issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe my modern application is already very robust in terms of
>>>> defence
>>>>> against sql injection as well as other OWASP top 10 attack vectors and
>>>> that
>>>>> a WAF primarily adds reassurance (for the business and clients who ask
>>>> if I
>>>>> have one) and minor frustration (for any potential attacker) layer. The
>>>>> spec is to add a WAF that meets (but notably does not necessarily have
>>>> to
>>>>> exceed) industry standards. I believe this means that I can switch
>>>> modsec
>>>>> to 128kb or 8kb partial parsing ('SecResponseBodyLimitAction
>>>>> ProcessPartial' - allowing through unscanned any payloads over those
>>>> sizes)
>>>>> and be able to say I've got scan-size-policy-parity with an AWS or a
>>>>> Cloudflare which means it is "industry standard".
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if you think that's mad and thanks again
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Henri
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 21:39, Christian Folini <
>>>> chr...@ne...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Hey Henri,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You are in a bad situation and as far as I can see you are right, you
>>>> might
>>>>> > have to drop modsec/CRS in this situation.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I've had a customer with a similar problem and we did a deep dive
>>>>> > investigation and I had to strike colors in the end.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The point is not the JSON parser. That has shown to be really fast.
>>>> The
>>>>> > point
>>>>> > is several hundred variables that go into CRS afterwards. If you run
>>>> CRS
>>>>> > on a
>>>>> > standard web application you get forms with a few parameters and
>>>> that's
>>>>> > easy.
>>>>> > But several megabytes of JSON means hundreds of arguments and CRS
>>>> parses
>>>>> > them
>>>>> > all.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So we tried to work with rule exclusions and skip the parameters we
>>>> did not
>>>>> > think dangerous, but here comes the bummer: ModSec 2.9 grew
>>>> substantially
>>>>> > slower the longer the ignore-lists of parameters became. This and a
>>>> few
>>>>> > very
>>>>> > odd behaviors.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Given the customer wanted a generic WAF without tuning of individual
>>>> APIs
>>>>> > we
>>>>> > got to a dead end.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > However, if tuning was an option, then I would probably edit-CRS with
>>>>> > msc_pyparser and replace the target lists with arguments I was
>>>> interested
>>>>> > in.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > https://coreruleset.org/20200901/introducing-msc_pyparser/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As a complementary practice, one could think of performing allowlist
>>>>> > checks on
>>>>> > some / most of the JSON. Say you have a huge JSON payload with 500
>>>>> > parameters.
>>>>> > You examine it and discover that 300 of them actually contain simple
>>>> digits
>>>>> > and asciii characters and neither special chars nor escape sequences.
>>>>> > So you do a regex allowlist and apply it to these 300 parameters of
>>>> said
>>>>> > API. And the rest you can push into CRS. Or a subset of CRS.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I have not done this and the problem is if ModSec is able to handle
>>>> the
>>>>> > large
>>>>> > target lists in a speedy manner.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Now you can turn to a CDN or alternative WAF. I would do an extensive
>>>>> > security
>>>>> > tests of such a system. As I said, the JSON parser can be really
>>>> fast. The
>>>>> > difficult thing is to check several hundred parameters without losing
>>>>> > performance.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Good luck!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Christian
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 08:47:06PM +0100, Henri Cook wrote:
>>>>> > > Hi all,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I'm in a situation where the only solution seems to be to drop
>>>> modsec/CRS
>>>>> > > and look at something like Cloudflare's WAF (and change our security
>>>>> > model
>>>>> > > out of necessity). I'm hoping the esteemed membership of this list
>>>> might
>>>>> > > have some thoughts.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I've got about 1MB of JSON, payloads in our app might run to 20 or
>>>> even
>>>>> > > 30MB ultimately.
>>>>> > > This 1MB of somewhat nested JSON (7 or 8 levels deep) can take 40
>>>> seconds
>>>>> > > to process in mod sec 3.0.4 with CRS 3.2.0
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > It takes 1 second to process in our API so the WAF element is a 39x
>>>> slow
>>>>> > > down. I appreciate there'll be some delays in WAF. Cloudflare's WAF
>>>>> > takes 5
>>>>> > > seconds to scan this payload - and that's my target.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Has anyone got any idea how to improve performance? Reading blog
>>>> posts
>>>>> > > about the development of cloudflare's waf I see that memoization of
>>>>> > common
>>>>> > > function calls was one of their absolute best performance
>>>> improvements
>>>>> > over
>>>>> > > their modsec implementation (e.g. strlen(response_body) so it's only
>>>>> > > calculated once instead of once per rule OR contains('somestring',
>>>>> > > response_body)... you get the drift). Do we have anything like this
>>>> in
>>>>> > > modsec today? Is that already in place and my 39 seconds is after
>>>> that?
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I appreciate that mod sec is fast on its own and adding complex
>>>> rules can
>>>>> > > be said to slow it down. With CRS being by far the most common use
>>>> case
>>>>> > for
>>>>> > > mod sec (based on my googling) I'm surprised it's this slow, do you
>>>> think
>>>>> > > i've missed something?
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > To note: I'm only scanning JSON payloads, typically much less than
>>>> 0.5MB
>>>>> > > but new, irregular ones that we need scanned in ideally <10 seconds
>>>> that
>>>>> > > can range from 1MB-30MB
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Best regards,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Henri Cook
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > mod-security-users mailing list
>>>>> > > mod...@li...
>>>>> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users
>>>>> > > Commercial ModSecurity Rules and Support from Trustwave's
>>>> SpiderLabs:
>>>>> > > http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/
>>>>> > > http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > mod-security-users mailing list
>>>>> > mod...@li...
>>>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users
>>>>> > Commercial ModSecurity Rules and Support from Trustwave's SpiderLabs:
>>>>> > http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/
>>>>> > http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/
>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mod-security-users mailing list
>>>>> mod...@li...
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users
>>>>> Commercial ModSecurity Rules and Support from Trustwave's SpiderLabs:
>>>>> http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/
>>>>> http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mod-security-users mailing list
>>>> mod...@li...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users
>>>> Commercial ModSecurity Rules and Support from Trustwave's SpiderLabs:
>>>> http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/
>>>> http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mod-security-users mailing list
> mod...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users
> Commercial ModSecurity Rules and Support from Trustwave's SpiderLabs:
> http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/
> http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/
|
