Otto Schlagmichtot | 2 Feb 22:01
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

filter html comments

Hi, i want to filter html comments in the response body. So i used this:
 
SecContentInjection On
SecResponseBodyAccess On
SecStreamOutBodyInspection On
SecRule STREAM_OUTPUT_BODY " <at> rsub s/<!--.*?-->/ /" "phase:4,t:none,nolog,pass"
 
This works but not if i have more than one line... for example:
<!—
Bla
Bla
Bal
 -->
and how could i resolve this problem with mod_security 2.5 ?
 
regards, kai
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Magento installer is running forever with mod_security enabled -small update-

Some small update. I also have this problem with the installation of Wordpress and was seeing the following
messages (a LOT):

[02/Feb/2012:15:56:52 +0100]
[example.net/sid#3f15368][rid#41d19c8][/wordpress/wp-admin/setup-config.php][9] Input
filter: Bucket type EOS contains 0 bytes.
[02/Feb/2012:16:01:29 +0100]
[example.net/sid#4091ad0][rid#43499c8][/magento/index.php/install/wizard/beginPost/][9]
Input filter: Bucket type EOS contains 0 bytes.

Hi Guys,

We have just installed a 2.6.3 installation of mod_security on a developement machine. Mod_security
seems to work normally as it should.
But when trying to install (the first screen where you have to agree the license agreement) Magento the
browser keeps "waiting for the host".

* When turning off mod_security it works normally
* even with no rules enabled
* nothing in logs
* SecComponentSignature "core ruleset/2.2.3"
* System: RHEL 6, PHP  + suPHP + suhosin PATCH), Selinux disabled
* Apache proces is eating 100% CPU

Anyone has a clue about this?

- Gerwin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/

Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Magento installer is running forever with mod_security enabled

Hi Guys,

We have just installed a 2.6.3 installation of mod_security on a developement machine. Mod_security
seems to work normally as it should.
But when trying to install (the first screen where you have to agree the license agreement) Magento the
browser keeps "waiting for the host".

* When turning off mod_security it works normally
* even with no rules enabled
* nothing in logs
* SecComponentSignature "core ruleset/2.2.3"
* System: RHEL 6, PHP  + suPHP + suhosin PATCH), Selinux disabled
* Apache proces is eating 100% CPU

Anyone has a clue about this?

- Gerwin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/

Neha Chriss | 1 Feb 02:28
Picon
Gravatar

Variable Expansion for Redirect Action and SecDefaultAction Inheritance

Hello,

I would like all of my rules to perform the default action of redirecting to a
custom page on our site. This redirect should supply the requests unique_id. I
thought the best method to do this would be using SecDefaultAction:


SecDefaultAction "setenv:unique_id=%{UNIQUE_ID}, \



My custom rules that have no action specified work just fine this way,
but if a rule is triggered in any of the coremod security rulesets, 
unique_id is not set and while a redirect *is* actually executed, 
the %{unique_id} variable is sent as a literal string.

How can I force the %{unique_id} variable to expand on every redirect for all
rules? Is there a better way to accomplish this? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/
rm4dillo D | 30 Jan 18:41
Picon
Gravatar

How to add/remove multiple targets with ctl:ruleUpdateTargetById

Hi,

With the "SecRuleUpdateTargetById" directive, it's possible to add/remove multiple targets using the following syntax:

    SecRuleUpdateTargetById 999999 !ARG:param1,!ARGS:param2

but if I try to write the same rule using the "ctl" action combined with the "ruleUpdateTargetById" option, I'm stuck because I can't use the comma as a separator.

Any ideas?

Rm4dillo

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/
Ebrahim Khalilzadeh | 28 Jan 09:50
Picon
Gravatar

HTTP Server go down

Hi,
I have been installed modsecurity 2.6.2 on IBM HTTP Server. That worked correctly until i changed to modsecurity  2.6.3 and This change occurred 3 weeks ago. I have developed my costume rules.   In this period my HTTP Server had gown down in two times. In These two times HTTP Server load was low and had not high traffic. No attack was detected by modsecurity in these cases.  we had no experience of down time for our HTTP Server for the last 5 years ago. I Cannot set Debug mod for HTTP Server because of high overload of this action. I checked http_access and error files and there was no suspicious logs. The only  log that may cause this problem is:

[Fri Jan 27 13:51:24 2012] [notice] ModSecurity for Apache/2.6.3 (http://www.modsecurity.org/) configured.
[Fri Jan 27 13:51:24 2012] [notice] ModSecurity: APR compiled version="1.3.8"; loaded version="1.2.12"
[Fri Jan 27 13:51:24 2012] [warn] ModSecurity: Loaded APR do not match with compiled!
[Fri Jan 27 13:51:24 2012] [notice] ModSecurity: PCRE compiled version="7.9"; loaded version="5.0 13-Sep-2004"
[Fri Jan 27 13:51:24 2012] [warn] ModSecurity: Loaded PCRE do not match with compiled!
[Fri Jan 27 13:51:24 2012] [notice] ModSecurity: LIBXML compiled version="2.7.7"

Can These warnings(APR and PCRE) cause going down my HTTP Server? How can I find that the root cause is related to modsecurity?

Best Regards,

khalilzadeh
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/
chris derham | 27 Jan 23:33
Picon

Re: mod-security-users Digest, Vol 68, Issue 16


>>> THAT is basically the big question we want to find out - IF IT IS OWNED BY Google.
>>> That cannot reliably be done via reverse-DNS (as you stated above).
>>>
>>> So, what we would need to do now, would be to do a reverse lookup and a
>>> forward lookup on the result, asserting that the forward lookup points to
>>> the original IP address:
>>>
>>>   EVIL-IP              --reverse-lookup--> IP.crawl.google.com
>>>   IP.crawl.google.com  ----dns-lookup----> 1.2.3.4
>>>
>>>   1.2.3.4 =? EVIL-IP
>>>
>>> Thus, to mask your evil IP by your devilish DNS, you'd also have to have
>>> some control over the forward DNS resolver.
>>>
>>> Still doable, but requires more effort.
>>> Does that sound better to you
>>
>> in theory yes, practically what you try to do is not possible
>>
>> it is dangerous, there is no RFC saying A-Record/PTR needs to match
>> and there will never be because it can not match in all cases
>> like a round-robin record below
>>
>> [harry <at> srv-rhsoft:~]$ nslookup www.google.com
>> Server:         127.0.0.1
>> Address:        127.0.0.1#53
>>
>> Non-authoritative answer:
>> www.google.com  canonical name = www.l.google.com.
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.106
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.147
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.99
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.103
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.104
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.105
>>
>> [harry <at> srv-rhsoft:~]$ nslookup 173.194.69.106
>> Server:         127.0.0.1
>> Address:        127.0.0.1#53
>>
>> Non-authoritative answer:
>> 106.69.194.173.in-addr.arpa     name = bk-in-f106.1e100.net.

So in an effort to help the discussion, here is the original link I referred to where a google bot engineer says this is the way to go http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-to-verify-googlebot.html. In addition for one of the google bot attempts to access our site, it came from IP 66.249.67.172. Performing the forward/reverse lookup gives the expected results

C:\>nslookup  66.249.67.172
Server:  UnKnown
Address:  192.168.2.1

Name:    crawl-66-249-67-172.googlebot.com
Address:  66.249.67.172

C:\>nslookup crawl-66-249-67-172.googlebot.com
Server:  UnKnown
Address:  192.168.2.1

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:    crawl-66-249-67-172.googlebot.com
Address:  66.249.67.172

So while this may not work for round-robin servers, the google bots do not appear to be load balanced,

The only problem I see with Chris's approach, is that you would have to wait for google bots to be blocked before you could detect their ips, perform the reverse/forward lookups and then block them. Assuming google have a large pool of google bots, this might take some time before you could get the same bot back again and let them in. On the other hand, invoking this double dns lookup when someone presents a suitable user agent sounds like a likely candidate for denial of service.

So have I got the wrong end of the stick with this?

Thanks

Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/
Ryan Barnett | 27 Jan 20:59

HOIC DDoS Analysis and Detection

There is a new DDoS tool in the wild that Anonymous is using called HOIC.  We did some analysis and provided
some ModSecurity rules -

http://blog.spiderlabs.com/2012/01/hoic-ddos-analysis-and-detection.html

--
Ryan Barnett
Senior Security Researcher
Trustwave - SpiderLabs
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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/

Sean Ezell | 27 Jan 18:32
Favicon
Gravatar

ModSecurity Console

http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/console  just redirects to http://www.modsecurity.org now. Is the Console no longer supported? The last update was in 2008.

 

Sean

 

Sean Ezell ‘05

sezell <at> linfield.edu x2720

Web Programmer

Linfield College

ITS WILL NEVER ASK YOU FOR YOUR PASSWORD.

PLEASE DON’T SHARE YOURS WITH ANYONE!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/
Reindl Harald | 27 Jan 18:01
Favicon

Re: Allowing google bot and google preview

not intentionally, maybe happended in rush

Am 27.01.2012 17:54, schrieb Christian Bockermann:
> Any reason you did not include the mailing list in your response? I think this is a rather nice discussion on
that topic. 
> 
> Chris
> 
> Am 27.01.2012 um 17:16 schrieb Reindl Harald <h.reindl <at> thelounge.net>:
> 
>>
>>
>> Am 27.01.2012 16:55, schrieb Christian Bockermann:
>>> Am 27.01.2012 um 15:34 schrieb Reindl Harald:
>>>> if i control the DNS for the PTR-zone of my ip-addresss i can set
>>>> anything as reverse-dns,
>>>
>>> Ok, I agree on that.
>>>
>>>> the only relieable thing is the IP and
>>>> if it is owned by google
>>>
>>> THAT is basically the big question we want to find out - IF IT IS OWNED BY Google.
>>> That cannot reliably be done via reverse-DNS (as you stated above).
>>>
>>> So, what we would need to do now, would be to do a reverse lookup and a
>>> forward lookup on the result, asserting that the forward lookup points to
>>> the original IP address:
>>>
>>>   EVIL-IP              --reverse-lookup--> IP.crawl.google.com
>>>   IP.crawl.google.com  ----dns-lookup----> 1.2.3.4
>>>
>>>   1.2.3.4 =? EVIL-IP
>>>
>>> Thus, to mask your evil IP by your devilish DNS, you'd also have to have
>>> some control over the forward DNS resolver.
>>>
>>> Still doable, but requires more effort.
>>> Does that sound better to you
>>
>> in theory yes, practically what you try to do is not possible
>>
>> it is dangerous, there is no RFC saying A-Record/PTR needs to match
>> and there will never be because it can not match in all cases
>> like a round-robin record below
>>
>> [harry <at> srv-rhsoft:~]$ nslookup www.google.com
>> Server:         127.0.0.1
>> Address:        127.0.0.1#53
>>
>> Non-authoritative answer:
>> www.google.com  canonical name = www.l.google.com.
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.106
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.147
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.99
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.103
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.104
>> Name:   www.l.google.com
>> Address: 173.194.69.105
>>
>> [harry <at> srv-rhsoft:~]$ nslookup 173.194.69.106
>> Server:         127.0.0.1
>> Address:        127.0.0.1#53
>>
>> Non-authoritative answer:
>> 106.69.194.173.in-addr.arpa     name = bk-in-f106.1e100.net.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/
chris derham | 27 Jan 10:52
Picon

Allowing google bot and google preview

All,

We are using apache 2.2.17 on windows server 2008 sp2. We run mod_security 2 core ruleset 2.1.1 - I realise this is a little out of date. We generally are running ok, but started having issues with our website when we started to try to let google to index it. Rule 960015 which stops requests without an accept header kicked in and stopped the google bot. I searched and found a post by Ryan which suggested that you should filter the incoming requests to a known IP address range, rather than just the user-agent, as this can be faked. This is fine, but if google updates their IP range, there is no way for them to publish this notification. I found a post where a google bot engineer suggested that the way to ensure it was a google bot was to preform a reverse lookup and then a forward look up on the IP, and make sure it comes from google.com. Is there anything in mod_security that would facilitate this?

Currently we have the rule

    SecRule REQUEST_HEADERS:User-Agent "\+http:\/\/www\.google\.com\/bot\.html" \
        "phase:1,nolog,allow,ctl:ruleEngine=Off"

So my first question is how can we just skip the rule instead of turning off all mod_security. I know you can set skip after, but doesn't that mean we have to edit the rules files, and remember all our edits and reapply when updating - was wondering if there was another mechanism. Second question is shortly after we managed to get the google bot through, google bot seems to have sent his friend "Google Web Preview". This is also tripping up rule 90015. The rule output shown below. Do we just need to add another suitable user-agent skip rule? My third question is that presumably none of this is new - other sites using mod_security must hit this issue often. So is there some default configuration to allow google (and other robots) in that we have missed?

Thanks for any help

Chris

--84670000-A-- [27/Jan/2012:09:33:37 +0000] TyJvcU1ERPAAABbkDY4AAAAs 209.85.228.93 56245 77.68.68.240 443

--84670000-B-- GET /public/image/mainBackgroundStrip.jpg HTTP/1.1 Cookie: JSESSIONID=A7D03B59EED2EEDC28B5CCD3E1524143 Referer: https://www.qnspay.com/server/home;jsessionid=A7D03B59EED2EEDC28B5CCD3E1524143 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/534.51 (KHTML, like Gecko; Google Web Preview) Chrome/12.0.742 Safari/534.51 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Host: www.qnspay.com X-Forwarded-For: 81.143.18.220  

--84670000-F-- HTTP/1.1 412 Precondition Failed Last-Modified: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:50:10 GMT ETag: "2000000003a1c-1f4-49c40d74cca58" Accept-Ranges: bytes Vary: Accept-Encoding Content-Encoding: gzip Content-Length: 328 Content-Type: text/html  

--84670000-H-- Message: Access denied with code 412 (phase 2). Operator EQ matched 0 at REQUEST_HEADERS. [file "D:/apps/Apache2.2/conf/modsecurity2/base_rules/modsecurity_crs_21_protocol_anomalies.conf"] [line "46"] [id "960015"] [rev "2.1.1"] [msg "Request Missing an Accept Header"] [severity "CRITICAL"] [tag "PROTOCOL_VIOLATION/MISSING_HEADER_ACCEPT"] [tag "WASCTC/WASC-21"] [tag "OWASP_TOP_10/A7"] [tag "PCI/6.5.10"] Action: Intercepted (phase 2) Stopwatch: 1327656817879800 15600 (0 0 -) Producer: ModSecurity for Apache/2.5.13 (http://www.modsecurity.org/); core ruleset/2.1.1. Server: Apache WebApp-Info: "QNS" "-" "-"  

--84670000-K-- SecAction "auditlog,status:412,phase:1,t:none,nolog,pass,setvar:tx.critical_anomaly_score=5,setvar:tx.error_anomaly_score=4,setvar:tx.warning_anomaly_score=3,setvar:tx.notice_anomaly_score=2" SecAction "auditlog,status:412,phase:1,t:none,nolog,pass,setvar:tx.inbound_anomaly_score_level=5" SecAction "auditlog,status:412,phase:1,t:none,nolog,pass,setvar:tx.outbound_anomaly_score_level=4" SecAction "auditlog,status:412,phase:1,t:none,nolog,pass,setvar:tx.paranoid_mode=0" SecAction "auditlog,status:412,phase:1,t:none,nolog,pass,setvar:tx.max_num_args=255" SecAction "auditlog,status:412,phase:1,t:none,nolog,pass,setvar:'tx.allowed_methods=GET HEAD POST OPTIONS',setvar:'tx.allowed_request_content_type=application/x-www-form-urlencoded multipart/form-data text/xml application/xml application/x-amf text/x-gwt-rpc',setvar:'tx.allowed_http_versions=HTTP/0.9 HTTP/1.0 HTTP/1.1',setvar:'tx.restricted_extensions=.asa/ .asax/ .ascx/ .axd/ .backup/ .bak/ .bat/ .cdx/ .cer/ .cfg/ .cmd/ .com/ .config/ .conf/ .cs/ .csproj/ .csr/ .dat/ .db/ .dbf/ .dll/ .dos/ .htr/ .htw/ .ida/ .idc/ .idq/ .inc/ .ini/ .key/ .licx/ .lnk/ .log/ .mdb/ .old/ .pass/ .pdb/ .pol/ .printer/ .pwd/ .resources/ .resx/ .sql/ .sys/ .vb/ .vbs/ .vbproj/ .vsdisco/ .webinfo/ .xsd/ .xsx/',setvar:'tx.restricted_headers=/Proxy-Connection/ /Lock-Token/ /Content-Range/ /Translate/ /via/ /if/'" SecRule "REQUEST_HEADERS:User-Agent" " <at> rx ^(.*)$" "auditlog,status:412,phase:1,t:none,pass,nolog,t:sha1,t:hexEncode,setvar:tx.ua_hash=%{matched_var}" SecAction "auditlog,status:412,phase:1,t:none,pass,nolog,initcol:global=global,initcol:ip=%{remote_addr}_%{tx.ua_hash}" SecRule "REQUEST_METHOD" " <at> rx ^(?:GET|HEAD)$" "log,auditlog,status:412,phase:1,chain,rev:2.1.1,t:none,block,msg:'GET or HEAD requests with bodies',severity:2,id:960011,tag:PROTOCOL_VIOLATION/EVASION,tag:WASCTC/WASC-21,tag:OWASP_TOP_10/A7,tag:PCI/6.5.10,tag:http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.3" SecRule "REQUEST_METHOD" "! <at> rx ^OPTIONS$" "log,auditlog,status:412,phase:2,chain,rev:2.1.1,t:none,block,msg:'Request Missing an Accept Header',severity:2,id:960015,tag:PROTOCOL_VIOLATION/MISSING_HEADER_ACCEPT,tag:WASCTC/WASC-21,tag:OWASP_TOP_10/A7,tag:PCI/6.5.10" SecRule "&REQUEST_HEADERS:Accept" " <at> eq 0" "t:none,setvar:tx.msg=%{rule.msg},setvar:tx.anomaly_score=+%{tx.notice_anomaly_score},setvar:tx.protocol_violation_score=+%{tx.notice_anomaly_score},setvar:tx.%{rule.id}-PROTOCOL_VIOLATION/MISSING_HEADER-%{matched_var_name}=%{matched_var}"  

--84670000-Z--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
mod-security-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
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/

Gmane