Re:Ask HN: How do you continuously monitor web logs for hack...
by tptacek on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @07:09AM
(#17020110)
Thanks for this. I admire ModSecurity! But the subtext of my comment is the needs of typical HN people, most of whom manage applications they wrote, for small companies. Overwhelmingly, those people should spend any time they would spend on things like ModSecurity instead shoring up the security of their code.
Re:Ask HN: How do you continuously monitor web logs for hack...
by FuckOffNeemo on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @09:47AM
(#17020833)
TLDR: Ivan, thank you for everything you've provided to the IT community.
- - - -
There's few people I am more pleased to see commenting here on a topic like Sec more than yourself Ivan, your work's exceptional. And the tools you've provided like Hardenize and SSL Labs have saved me countless hours.
Your books have been an immense source of knowledge for me (and I'm relatively a newcomer by my colleagues standards).
Really pleased to see you here on HN. Though, I'm not entirely surprised. The best of the best seem to haunt this place.
The first two use cases are all about traffic visibility, which has been, and remains a big problem. If we're talking about improving security, the third use case—virtual patching—is the exciting part. The story goes something like this: you discover a vulnerability in your code but you can't fix it immediately, for whatever reason (take your pick). In practice, it may be weeks until the problem is fixed. However, if you have ModSecurity installed, you can write a virtual patch for your problem, often to fix it 100% reliably.
However, it's very important to understand that virtual patching doesn't mean just slapping together some rule that appears to be doing the job. Blacklisting doesn't work. To properly virtual-patch, you have to fully understand the vulnerability and the entry point to the application. You have to carefully whitelist all parameters in that particular location. In other words, you have to almost replicate the work that should have been done by the developer.
Even in this context, it's not all rosy. Virtual patching requires a great deal of expertise to do properly. It's almost always better to spend your time fixing the actual problem. Sometimes, however, that's not possible to do in a reasonable time frame, and that's when a WAF (according to my definition), can be a life saver.