Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 14, 2020. It is now read-only.

Removing overbearing use of Refer header added in 3.0.0 due to FPs #585

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 5, 2016
Merged

Removing overbearing use of Refer header added in 3.0.0 due to FPs #585

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 5, 2016

Conversation

csanders-git
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks to @jschleus for the report. This false positive was noted in #547

@csanders-git csanders-git added this to the CRS v3.0.0 RC2 milestone Sep 22, 2016
@dune73
Copy link
Contributor

dune73 commented Oct 5, 2016

The Referer is a dangerous header and with all these log dashboards and online log browsers, it becomes more dangerous still.

But of course it's a source of many FPs and I see the need to get rid of these.

May I suggest to add move the Referer to a strict sibling of these two rules in PL2? Most applications have fairly standard Referers 90% of the time (-> internal referers). So if you handle the possible FPs at PL2 for these known offending Referers, you are quite OK. And I think we can expect that effort from somebody running PL2.

@lifeforms
Copy link
Contributor

@dune73 I'm not against adding XSS checks in PL2, but we should probably be a bit smarter about it instead of just adding Referer check as I had done last-minute. These particular rules will fire heavy on a lot of URLs. Since Referer XSS checks were not in CRS2 at all, I would propose that it's not a "must have" for 3.0 and we'd better make it a bit of a research project. Maybe we should try looking for a few little PoCs to get more of an idea of how log viewers will be affected so we can intelligently add some detection.

@dune73
Copy link
Contributor

dune73 commented Oct 5, 2016

PL3 as a compromise?

This keeps the check in the rulebase and makes sure we do not forget about it. Without us having to deal with it in the near future.

@lifeforms
Copy link
Contributor

Would not mind it, but on the whole I'm not sure if we're doing users a service with this check. Also even if we enable this rule the XSS protection is likely not very complete. We really have to dive into the problem more deeply. To remind ourselves to revisit this issue I created #606.

@dune73
Copy link
Contributor

dune73 commented Oct 5, 2016

OK. You are probably right and my desire to get stuff off the table is too drastic.

Ready to merge.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants