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: Srikanth A. <sri...@go...> - 2021-05-10 13:28:33
|
Hi Henri
It defintly worked for me.
SecRequestBodyLimit 13107200
SecRequestBodyNoFileaLimit 131072
Restricts to 12.5 mb of large payload.
The only thing is if i had injections through the end, it passes through.
In your case i think you are fine with it.
And of course SecRequestBodyAccess On
Should be set
Thanks
Srikanth Arunachalam
On Mon, 10 May 2021, 14:17 Henri Cook, <henri@proteus.tech> wrote:
> Thanks for this azurit but neither of these worked for me. I changed the
> id to 1001 and put it in my REQUEST-900-EXCLUSION-RULES-BEFORE-CRS.conf - I
> still see a delay processing a large json payload - do you have any idea
> where I might have gone wrong?
>
> I think my goal is to stop the JSON request body being parsed if it's over
> 128kb in size. An advance goal would be to have it scanned as text to
> provide *some* level of protection - I think this is what cloudflare does
> (from a very cursory glance)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Henri
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 19:02, <az...@po...> wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
|
