-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 402
Go Test WAF bypasses #1991
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
This issue has been open 120 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or comment, or this will be closed in 14 days |
I will take care of this one. |
Thank you |
Ok, so I found some time to run some tests with gotestwaf. Tests were made using the same docker-compose we use for testing using ftw/go-ftw, with just one modification: ❯ diff tests/gotestwaf.yml tests/docker-compose.yml
14c14
< MODSEC_RULE_ENGINE: "On"
---
> MODSEC_RULE_ENGINE: DetectionOnly Here are the results (they differ depending on the url used):
I'm attaching all PDFs is someone wants to review. |
This is with
|
And the one that I really like, is the one that comes from adding
|
In summary: there might be some bypasses in PL4 that we might want to look, but probably I would say the bypass is wrong. |
Thank you very much @fzipi. I do not really get all of your statistical tables above, but I was able to extract useful information from the PDF reports and validated by hand. I looked at the false positives and the bypasses (but not the unresolved cases). False Positives at PL1
False Negatives at PL1
|
For the false negatives, I am unsure what to do. The mail injection stuff that we only catch at PL4 (and only by accident) is asking for a new rule I guess. The Windows RCE that we only catch at PL3 is substantial. If this tripple dot work in Windows, we should catch it at PL1 I guess. The stuff that we catch at PL2 is not overly noteworthy, I guess. |
Excellent! I've been playing with the idea of adding fuzzing to go-ftw. I guess from this one that it might make some sense after all... |
So you would take the payload in an existing test and start to fuzz it? |
Yes, that's the idea. Provided that can be done. |
Any status update, @fzipi? Also: I guess we need a volunteer for the
|
The fuzzing is a separate idea. But I have opened two new issues that replace this issues. I'm thus closing this. |
Description
https://github.com/wallarm/gotestwaf#testing-on-owasp-modsecurity-core-rule-set
Confirmation
[X] I have removed any personal data (email addresses, IP addresses,
passwords, domain names) from any logs posted.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: