Mitigating OWASP API Security Top 10 risks using F5 NGINX App Protect
This 2019 API Security article covers the summary of OWASP API Security Top 10 – 2019 categories and newly published 2023 API security article covered introductory part of newest edition of OWASP API Security Top 10 risks – 2023. We will deep-dive into some of those common risks and how we can protect our applications against these vulnerabilities using F5 NGINX App Protect. Excessive Data Exposure Problem Statement: As shown below in one of the demo application API’s, Personal Identifiable Information (PII) data, like Credit Card Numbers (CCN) and U.S. Social Security Numbers (SSN), are visible in responses that are highly sensitive. So, we must hide these details to prevent personal data exploits. Solution: To prevent this vulnerability, we will use the DataGuard feature in NGINX App Protect, which validates all response data for sensitive details and will either mask the data or block those requests, as per the configured settings. First, we will configure DataGuard to mask the PII data as shown below and will apply this configuration. Next, if we resend the same request, we can see that the CCN/SSN numbers are masked, thereby preventing data breaches. If needed, we can update configurations to block this vulnerability after which all incoming requests for this endpoint will be blocked. If you open the security log and filter with this support ID, we can see that the request is either blocked or PII data is masked, as per the DataGuard configuration applied in the above section. Injection Problem Statement: Customer login pages without secure coding practices may have flaws. Intruders could use those flaws to exploit credential validation using different types of injections, like SQLi, command injections, etc. In our demo application, we have found an exploit which allows us to bypass credential validation using SQL injection (by using username as “' OR true --” and any password), thereby getting administrative access, as below: Solution: NGINX App Protect has a database of signatures that match this type of SQLi attacks. By configuring the WAF policy in blocking mode, NGINX App Protect can identify and block this attack, as shown below. If you check in the security log with this support ID, we can see that request is blocked because of SQL injection risk, as below. Insufficient Logging & Monitoring Problem Statement: Appropriate logging and monitoring solutions play a pivotal role in identifying attacks and also in finding the root cause for any security issues. Without these solutions, applications are fully exposed to attackers and SecOps is completely blind to identifying details of users and resources being accessed. Solution: NGINX provides different options to track logging details of applications for end-to-end visibility of every request both from a security and performance perspective. Users can change configurations as per their requirements and can also configure different logging mechanisms with different levels. Check the links below for more details on logging: https://www.nginx.com/blog/logging-upstream-nginx-traffic-cdn77/ https://www.nginx.com/blog/modsecurity-logging-and-debugging/ https://www.nginx.com/blog/using-nginx-logging-for-application-performance-monitoring/ https://docs.nginx.com/nginx/admin-guide/monitoring/logging/ https://docs.nginx.com/nginx-app-protect-waf/logging-overview/logs-overview/ Unrestricted Access to Sensitive Business Flows Problem Statement: By using the power of automation tools, attackers can now break through tough levels of protection. The inefficiency of APIs to detect automated bot tools not only causes business loss, but it can also adversely impact the services for genuine users of an application. Solution: NGINX App Protect has the best-in-class bot detection technology and can detect and label automation tools in different categories, like trusted, untrusted, and unknown. Depending on the appropriate configurations applied in the policy, requests generated from these tools are either blocked or alerted. Below is an example that shows how requests generated from the Postman automation tool are getting blocked. By filtering the security log with this support-id, we can see that the request is blocked because of an untrusted bot. Lack of Resources & Rate Limiting Problem Statement: APIs do not have any restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be requested by the end user. Above mentioned scenarios sometimes lead to poor API server performance, Denial of Service (DoS), and brute force attacks. Solution: NGINX App Protect provides different ways to rate limit the requests as per user requirements. A simple rate limiting use case configuration is able to block requests after reaching the limit, which is demonstrated below. Server-Side Request Forgery Problem Statement: In an SSRF attack, vulnerable API endpoint within the application is targeted and attacker sends an unauthorized request allowing it to access internal resources. One of the common reasons for this is limited or lack of user input data validation. Example: In the demo application below, click on ‘Contact Mechanic’ and provide required details like Mechanic name, Problem Description and send Service Request. Below image shows that ‘contact_mechanic’ endpoint is internally making a call to ‘mechanic_api’ URL. Since ‘mechanic_api’ parameter accepts URL as data, this can be vulnerable to SSRF attacks. Exploiting the vulnerable endpoint by modifying ‘mechanic_api’ URL call to www.google.com in POST data call got accepted by returning 200 OK as response. This vulnerability can be misused to gain access to internal resources. Solution: To prevent this vulnerability, we will use the WAF API Security Policy in NGINX App Protect, which validates all the API request parameters and will block the suspicious requests consisting of irrelevant parameters, as shown below. Restricted/updated swagger file with .json extension is added as below: Policy used: App Protect API Security Retrying the vulnerability with ‘mechanic_api’ URL call to www.google.com in POST data now getting blocked. Validating the support ID in the security log below: Mass Assignment Problem Statement: API Mass Assignment vulnerability arises when clients can modify immutable internal object properties via crafted requests, bypassing API Endpoint restrictions. Attackers exploit this by sending malicious HTTP requests to escalate privileges, bypass security mechanisms, or manipulate the API Endpoint's functionality. Placing an order with quantity as 1: Bypassing API Endpoint restrictions and placing the order with quantity as -1 is also successful. Solution: To overcome this vulnerability, we will use the WAF API Security Policy in NGINX App Protect which validates all the API Security event triggered and based on the enforcement mode set in the validation rules, the request will either get reported or blocked, as shown below. Restricted/updated swagger file with .json extension is added as below: Policy used: App Protect API Security Re-attempting to place the order with quantity as -1 is getting blocked. Validating the support ID in Security log as below: Conclusion: In short, this article covered some common API vulnerabilities and shows how NGINX App Protect can be used as a mitigation solution to prevent these OWASP API security risks. Related resources for more information or to get started: F5 NGINX App Protect OWASP API Security Top 10 2019 OWASP API Security Top 10 2023Mitigating OWASP API Security Risk: Security Misconfiguration using F5 XC Platform
Overview This article is a continuation of the series of articles on OWASP API Security vulnerabilities and demonstrates a scenario for mitigating API Security Misconfiguration using F5 Distributed Cloud(XC) Platform. See F5 Distributed Cloud API Security dynamically discover and automatically protect API endpoints. Introduction to OWASP API Security Misconfiguration APIs are the backbone of the modern application development model and because of their heavy usage they often become victim of attacks. Sometimes these vulnerabilities arise if security best practices are missed and are not followed properly in application development life cycle. Below are a few scenarios which fall under API Security Misconfiguration category: Latest security patches are not applied. Unnecessary HTTP verbs are enabled exposing APIs to get accessed by them. Improper implementation of CORS policy. Missing repeatable security hardening process. Exposing detailed stack trace error messages or sensitive information. Problem Statement Improperly configured CORS policies can expose web applications to vulnerabilities, allowing malicious actors to perform unauthorized actions or access sensitive data. This poses significant risks to user privacy, application integrity, and organizational security. In the demonstration below we will cover a scenario where the application is vulnerable to CORS and will see how F5 Distributed Cloud WAAP can help in identifying and mitigating such threats. What is Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) ? CORS is a security feature implemented by browsers to allow or block web applications from making requests to domains other than their own. This mechanism helps prevent certain types of attacks, by ensuring that only authorized domains can access certain resources. CORS occurs only when the target server(cross-origin) is accessed from other domains and sub-domains. CORS works by specific HTTP/S headers that allow a server to explicitly specify which origins are allowed to access its resources and which methods and headers can be used. Preflight Request: When making cross-origin requests that are complex (i.e., requests that use non-simple methods, custom headers, or credentials), the browser sends an OPTIONS request before the actual request which is called the preflight request. The preflight request is used to check if the server will allow the actual request. Specifically, a preflight request occurs when a web page makes a cross-origin HTTP request that does not meet the simple request criteria defined by the CORS specification. Consider the scenario below, where authentication request in the origin server is handled by some third-party cross-origin server. If the cross-origin server is not configured to block untrusted origins based on domain, methods and headers, attacker can take advantage of this vulnerability by performing harmful action using methods and headers in requests. Users access the origin web server through web browser and enters the credentials for authentication. Authentication request will be transferred to cross-origin web server for authentication. Authentication request from origin contains non-simple header (X-Custom-Header), as per CORS specification browser sends a Preflight Request to cross-origin, with all the details of actual request. Cross-Origin responds back with Preflight Response where it’s allowing all the requests. Browser checks the preflight response and since all the requests are allowed, actual request containing the payload is sent to the cross-origin. Cross-Origin responds back with the authentication token. In this scenario, since all the origins, methods and custom headers are allowed by cross-origin, the attacker can craft a malicious request to modify or delete the content in cross-origin server from any origin server. Prevention using F5 XC: From the suite of security solutions offered by F5 Distributed Cloud(XC) WAAP, here we have chosen to create an ‘CORS Policy’ to allow only authorized requests. Pre-requisites: Create a Load Balancer in F5 XC and point the LB to the vulnerable web server by adding the server details in origin pool. For LB configuration steps, please follow the steps here. Configure CORS policy under “Common Security Controls” in LB to allow only authorized requests. For CORS configuration steps, please follow the steps here. *Allow Origin and Allow Origin Regex fields in F5 XC CORS configuration will be used to verify the Origins for CORS. Origins/Domains not listed won’t be blocked and continue to work normally. Note – Chrome browser is used throughout this demo The malicious activity which can be performed in the scenario discussed earlier can be mitigated by having the vulnerable cross-origin web server behind F5 XC . In F5 XC load balancer a CORS feature security policy must be configured to check origin, methods and customer headers based on security requirement. Users access the origin web server through web browser and enters the credentials for authentication. Authentication request will be transferred to cross-origin web server for authentication. Authentication request from origin contains non-simple header (X-Custom-Header), as per CORS specification browser sends a Preflight Request to cross-origin, with all the details of actual request. Fig 2.2 - Preflight request Highlighted sections will be part of Preflight Request sent to the cross-origin (target server) from the web browser. These values are extracted from the request made by the user. Since cross-origin is protected by F5 XC in this scenario, F5 XC responds with Preflight Response. Fig 2.3 - Preflight response As per our architecture shown in Fig 2, cross-origin (target server) is behind F5 XC which has a CORS policy configured. The highlighted section shows the Preflight Response sent from the F5 XC to the web browser based on the CORS configuration defined in F5 XC. The browser checks the preflight response sent from the F5 XC where all the non-simple methods and custom headers are blocked, web browser verifies this and drops the actual request. Fig 2.4 - Actual request blocked due to CORS Fig 2.5 - Preflight options call captured in F5 XC In the above screenshot, Preflight (OPTIONS) request made to load balancer (having target server) can be observed. The subsequent actual request is not present which is blocked by the browser based on CORS configuration. Conclusion In conclusion, ensuring that web applications are safeguarded against CORS vulnerabilities is not just a technical necessity—it's a critical step in protecting users and business. By using F5 XC WAAP solution, proactive control can be taken over security environment, preventing unauthorized cross-origin requests and safeguarding sensitive data from malicious actors. Further Reading Official W3C CORS specification CORS Reference OWASP API Security Project OWASP API7:2019 Security Misconfiguration F5 Distributed Cloud Services F5 Distributed Cloud WAAP Overview of OWASP API Security Top 10 2019F5 Distributed Cloud JA4 detection for enhanced performance and detection
JA4+ is a suite of network fingerprinting methods. These methods are both human and machine readable to facilitate more effective threat-hunting and analysis. The use cases for these fingerprints include scanning for threat actors, malware detection, session hijacking prevention, compliance automation, location tracking, DDoS detection, grouping of threat actors, reverse shell detection, and many more. Introduction In a previous article, Identity-Aware decisions with JA4+ we discussed using JA4 fingerprints with BIG-IP. In this article, we are exploring the use of JA4 in F5 Distributed Cloud. A very useful use case for using JA4 in F5 Distributed Cloud is explained at F5 App Connect and NetApp S3 Storage – Secured Scalable AI RAG. Let's go through the steps of getting the JA4 fingerprints applied to a traffic sample. Implementation In this example we are using NGINX instance deployed via F5 Distributed Cloud Distributed Apps. Deploy Virtual K8s through Distributed Apps. Create service policy with the matching JA4 fingerprints to block. JA4 Database can be found over here JA4 Database Service policy creation From Distributed Cloud UI > Distributed Apps > Manage > Service Policies > Service Policies Add Service Policy Add name: ja4-service-policy Under rules, select Custom rules and then click configure Click Add item Update the below, Add name, Actions. Show advanced fields in the client section. TLS Fingerprint Matcher: JA4 TLS Fingerprint Click Configure JA4 TLS Fingerprint Click Add item and match the needed JA4 fingerprint. In our case, we are blocking curl, wget fingerprints. Click Apply, to save, then Save, and Exit. Now, we attach the service policy to our HTTP Load balancer. Manage > HTTP Loadbalancer > Click Manage configurations Click Edit Configurations At Common Security Controls section, Select Apply Service Policies and click Edit Configurations. Select the configured policy, then Apply. Testing From Firefox browser From Ubuntu using curl Observing logs from F5 Distributed Cloud From HTTP Loadbalancers > select the created loadbalancer and click Security Monitoring Click Security Events to check the requests You can see the events with the requests and client information From Action column, you can select Explain with AI to gain further information and recommendations. We have the service policy configured and attached. It can be attached as well to different component for client identification as well. Related Content F5 App Connect and NetApp S3 Storage – Secured Scalable AI RAG | DevCentral Fingerprint TLS Clients with JA4 on F5 BIG-IP using iRules JA4 Part 2: Detecting and Mitigating Based on Dynamic JA4 Reputation | DevCentral Identity-Aware decisions with JA4+ | DevCentral Setting Up A Basic Customer Edge To Run vk8s in F5 Distributed Cloud App Stack | DevCentralMitigating OWASP Web Application Risk: Broken Access attacks using F5 Distributed Cloud Platform
This article is in continuation of the owasp series and will cover broken access control. Check here for overview article. Introduction to Broken Access Control attack: Access controls enforces policy such that users cannot act outside of their intended permissions. Also called authorization, allows or denies access to your application's features and resources. Misuse of access control enables: Unauthorized access to sensitive information. Privilege escalation. Illegal file executions. There are many ways to infiltrate application servers using broken access controls and we are going to focus on the 2 scenarios below and how to mitigate them. Scenario 1: Broken access + SQL injection attack Instead of logging with valid credentials, attacker uses SQL injection attacks to login as another standard or higher privileged user, like admin. We can also say this is broken authentication, because an attacker authenticated to a system using injection attack without providing valid credentials. For this demo I am using OWASP Juice shop (reference links at bottom for more info). Step1: Please follow steps suggested in Article1 to configure HTTP load balancer and WAF in cloud console. Make sure WAF is configured in Monitoring mode to generate the attack. Step2: Open a browser and navigate to the login page of the application load balancer. In the Email field provide “' OR true --” and any password as below: Step3: Validate you can login to application as administrator as below: Scenario2: File upload vulnerability Any file which has the capability to harm the server is a malicious file. For example, a php file which has some dangerous php functions like exec () can be considered as a malicious file as these functions can execute OS command and can remotely provide us the control of the application server. Suppose there is a file upload functionality in the web application and only jpeg extension file is allowed to be uploaded. Failing to properly enforce access restrictions on file properties can lead to broken access control attacks providing attackers a way to upload potentially dangerous files with different extensions. For this demo I am using DVWA as the vulnerable testing application (reference links at bottom for more info). Step by step process: Step1: Open a notepad editor and paste below contents and save to desktop as malicious.php Step2: Open a browser and navigate to the application load balancer URL. Login to DVWA application using admin/password as the credentials. Click on “File Upload” option in left side of the menu section. Step3: This page is used to upload images with extensions .jpeg, .png, .gif etc. But this demo application doesn’t have file restrictions enabled making attackers to upload any file extensions. Click on “Choose File” button and upload above created .php file. Step4: Note the location displayed in the message, open the URL in the browser and validate we can see all the users available as below. NOTE: Since this is just a demo environment, I'm using same F5 Distributed Cloud load balancer for both the demo applications by changing the IP and ports in F5 Distributed Cloud Origin pool as per my needs. That's why you can see both apps are accessible using juiceshop domain. Solution: To mitigate these attacks, navigate to Firewall section and in “App Firewall” configuration make sure “Enforcement Mode” is set to “Blocking” as below: Next in browser try to generate above scenarios and validate your request is blocked as below. Login Mitigation: Illegal File Upload mitigation: Illegal File Execution mitigations: In Distributed Cloud Console expand the security event and check the WAF section to understand the reason why request was blocked. Conclusion: As shown above, OWASP Top 10: Broken access control attacks can be mitigated by configuring WAF firewall in “Blocking” mode. For further information click the links below: OWASP - Broken access control File Upload Vulnerability OWASP Juice Shop DVWAOWASP Tactical Access Defense Series: Broken Object Level Authorization and BIG-IP APM
Addressing Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA) vulnerabilities requires a multifaceted approach, combining robust coding practices, secure development methodologies, and powerful tools. Among these tools, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) stands out as a crucial component in the arsenal of security measures. This article, the second in a series of articles dedicated to fortifying application security, delves into the pivotal role that BIG-IP APM plays in identifying, mitigating, and ultimately preventing OWASP top 10 API vulnerabilities by providing developers and security professionals with a comprehensive guide to bolstering application security in the face of evolving cyber threats. Broken Object Level Authorization This is one of the most common and severe vulnerabilities within APIs and is related to Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR). Starting with, what's Object Level Authorization? This is an access control mechanism that's in place to validate which user has access to a specific endpoint and what actions to be performed. BOLA and IDOR refer to situations where the endpoints fail to enforce specific authorization rules on endpoints, or the user is successfully able to access unauthorized endpoints and perform unauthorized actions. The weakness that can lead to this vulnerability is the server component fails to track client state and rely on other parameters that can be tweaked from the client side, for example (Cookies, object IDs). BOLA Example Let's assume this backend directory, - /uploads/ - user1/ - file1.txt - file2.txt - user2/ - file3.txt - file4.txt The expected user1 usage is as follows, https://example.com/viewfile?file=file1.txt the user can access file1. If the server is vulnerable to BOLA, let's have user2 accessing the server, then try to navigate to file1 as follows, https://example.com/viewfile?file=user1/file1.txt What could help us in this situation? Yes, we need granular endpoint authorization with proper client state tracking. That's where our lovely friend BIG-IP APM comes into the picture. Let's see how BIG-IP APM can help us. BIG-IP APM and BOLA protection BIG-IP APM provides API protection through its Per-Request policy, where the it applies granular Access protection to each API endpoint. How BIG-IP APM enhances defenses We start with creating our Per-Request policy, this policy works in a different way than the per-session policy, as the flow will be evaluted on a per-request basis, making sure to consider variations throught the session life-time. Below are some of the key benefits: Wide range of Authentication, SSO, and MFA mechanisms to properly identify the initiating machine or user. Ability to integrate with 3rd parties to provide additional enforcement decisions based on the organization's policy. Ability to apply endpoint checks on the client side before session initiation. This goes to BIG-IP in general, the ability to apply custom traffic control on both of the traffic sides, Client and Server. Using BIG-IP API protection profile. Protection profiles are an easy way to deploy both APM (Per-Request policy) and Advanced Web Application Firewall (AWAF). As a pre-requisite, you need APM, AWAF licensed and provisioned. Use OpenAPI Spec 2.0 as an input to the API protection. Apply different Authentication methods, whether Basic, Oauth (Directly from the template), or once we have the API protection profile created, we can customize policy elements to our needs. Using Hybrid approach with F5 Distributed Cloud (F5 XC) + BIG-IP APM We had this approach discussed in details through F5 Hybrid Security Architectures (Part 5 - F5 XC, BIG-IP APM, CIS, and NGINX Ingress Controller) Stay engaged to explore the comprehensive capabilities of BIG-IP APM and how it plays a pivotal role in fortifying your security posture against these formidable threats. Related Content F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager | F5 Introduction to OWASP API Security Top 10 2023 OWASP Top 10 API Security Risks – 2023 - OWASP API Security Top 10 API Protection Concepts OWASP Tactical Access Defense Series: How BIG-IP APM Strengthens Defenses Against OWASP Top 10 F5 Hybrid Security Architectures (Part 5 - F5 XC, BIG-IP APM, CIS, and NGINX Ingress Controller)Ridiculously Easy Bot Protection: How to Use BIG-IP APM to Streamline Bot Defense Implementation
Ever imagined how your Bot solution implementation would be with a standard entry page at your application side--a page that’s easily referred, with clear parameters, and structured customization options? In this article, we are exploring using F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (BIG-IP APM) along side F5 Distributed Cloud Bot Defense (XC Bot Defense). Bot defense solutions' challenges Implementing bot defense solutions presents several challenges, each with unique considerations: Evolving Bot Tactics: Bot tactics constantly evolve, demanding adaptive detection methods to avoid both false positives (blocking legitimate users) and false negatives (allowing malicious bots through). Effective solutions must be highly flexible and responsive to these changes. Multi-Environment Integration: Bot defenses need to be deployed across diverse environments, including web, mobile, and APIs, adding layers of complexity to integration. Ensuring seamless protection across these platforms is critical. Balancing Security and Performance: Security measures must be balanced with performance to avoid degrading the user experience. A well-calibrated bot defense should secure the application without causing noticeable slowdowns or other disruptions for legitimate users. Data Privacy Compliance: Bot solutions often require extensive data collection, so adherence to data privacy laws is essential. Ensuring that bot defense practices align with regulatory standards helps avoid legal complications and maintains user trust. Resource Demands: Integrating bot defense with existing security stacks can be resource-intensive, both in terms of cost and skilled personnel. Proper configuration, monitoring, and maintenance require dedicated resources to ensure long-term effectiveness and efficiency. What F5 BIG-IP APM brings to the table? For teams working on bot defense solutions, several operational challenges can arise: Targeted Implementation Complexity: Identifying the correct application page for applying bot defense is often a complex process. Teams must ensure the solution targets the page containing the specific parameters they want to protect, which can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. Adaptation to Application Changes: Changes like upgrades or redesigns of the application page often require adjustments to bot defenses. These modifications can translate into significant resource commitments, as teams work to ensure the bot solution remains aligned with the new page structure. BIG-IP APM simplifies this process by making it easier to identify and target the correct page, reducing the time and resources needed for implementation. This allows technical and business resources to focus on more strategic priorities, such as fine-tuning bot defenses, optimizing protection, and enhancing application performance. Architecture and traffic flow In this section, let's explore how F5 XC Bot Defense and BIG-IP APM works together, let's list the prerequisites, F5 XC account with access to Bot Defense. APM licensed and provisioned. F5 BIG-IP min. v16.x for native connector integration. BIG-IP Self IP rechability to Internet to communicate with F5 XC, mainly to reach this domin (ibd-web.fastcache.net). Now, time to go quickly through our beloved TMM packet order. Due to the nature of BIG-IP APM Access events take precedence to the Bot enforcement, hence we will rely on simple iRule to apply Bot Defense on BIG-IP APM logon page. BIG-IP Bot Defense is responsible for inserting the JS and passing traffic from client to APM VS back and forth. BIG-IP APM responsible for logon page, MFA, API security or SSO integrations to manage client Access to the backend application. Solution Implementation Let's start now with our solution implementation, F5 Distributed Cloud Bot defense connector with BIG-IP was discussed in details in this Article F5 Distributed Cloud Bot Defense on BIG-IP 17.1 You will follow the steps mentioned in the article, with few changes mentioned below, API Hostname Web: ibd-web.fastcache.net For Per-session policies we use /my.policy as the target URL, while for Per-request and MFA implementation, you need to add /vdesk/*. Protection Pool - Web: Create pool with FQDN ibd-web.fastcache.net Virtual server, Create LTM virtual server to listen to incoming traffic, perform SSL offloading, HTTP profile and attach Bot Defense connector profile. Forwarding iRule, attach forwarding irule to the Bot virtual server. when CLIENT_ACCEPTED { ## Forwarding to the APM Virtual Server virtual Auth_VS } BIG-IP APM Policies, In this step we are creating two options of our deployment, Per-Session policy, where BIG-IP presents Logon page to the user. Per-Request policy, which services in case initial logon is handled at remote IdP and APM handles Per-request, MFA authentication or API security. Now, it's time to run the traffic and observe the results, From client browser, we can see the customer1.js inserted, From F5 XC Dashboard, Conclusion The primary goal of incorporating BIG-IP APM into the Bot Defense solution is to strike a balance between accelerating application development across web and mobile platforms while enforcing consistent organizational bot policies. By decoupling application login and authentication from the application itself, this approach enables a more streamlined, optimized, and secure bot defense implementation. It allows development teams to concentrate on application performance and feature enhancements, knowing that security measures are robustly managed and seamlessly integrated into the infrastructure. Related Content F5 Distributed Cloud Bot Defense on BIG-IP 17.1 Bot Detection and Security: Stop Automated Attacks 2024 Bad Bots ReviewMitigate OWASP LLM Security Risk: Sensitive Information Disclosure Using F5 NGINX App Protect
This short WAF security article covered the critical security gaps present in current generative AI applications, emphasizing the urgent need for robust protection measures in LLM design deployments. Finally we also demonstrated how F5 Nginx App Protect v5 offers an effective solution to mitigate the OWASP LLM Top 10 risks.OWASP Tactical Access Defense Series: Broken Function Level Authorization (BFLA)
Broken Function Level Authorization (BFLA) is a type of security vulnerability in web applications where an attacker can access functionality or perform actions they should not be authorized to perform. This problem happens when an application doesn’t check access control on functions or endpoints correctly. This lets users do things that are not allowed. In this article, we are going through API5 item from OWASP Top 10 API Security risks and exploring F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) as a role in our arsenal Let’s consider our test application for each retail agent to submit their sales data, but without the ability to retrieve any from the system. In HTTP terms, the retail agent can POST but not allowed to perform GET, while the manager can perform GET to check agents performance, and collected data. Mitigating Risks with BIG-IP APM BIG-IP APM per-request granularity: with per-request granularity, organizations can dynamically enforce access policies based on various factors such as user identity, device characteristics, and contextual information. This enables organizations to implement fine-grained access controls at the API level, mitigating the risks associated with Broken Function Level Authorization. Key Features: Dynamic Access Control Policies: BIG-IP APM empowers organizations to define dynamic access control policies that adapt to changing conditions in real-time. By evaluating each API request against these policies, BIG-IP APM ensures that authorized users can only perform specific authorized functions (actions) on specified resources. Granular Authorization Rules: BIG-IP APM enables organizations to define granular authorization rules that govern access to individual objects or resources within the API ecosystem. By enforcing strict permission checks at the object level, F5 BIG-IP APM prevents unauthorized functions. Related Content F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager | F5 Introduction to OWASP API Security Top 10 2023 OWASP Top 10 API Security Risks – 2023 - OWASP API Security Top 10 API Protection Concepts OWASP Tactical Access Defense Series: How BIG-IP APM Strengthens Defenses Against OWASP Top 10 OWASP Tactical Access Defense Series: Broken Object-Level Authorization and BIG-IP APM F5 Hybrid Security Architectures (Part 5 - F5 XC, BIG-IP APM, CIS, and NGINX Ingress Controller) OWASP Tactical Access Defense Series: Broken Authentication and BIG-IP APM OWASP Tactical Access Defense Series: Broken Object Property-Level Authorization and BIG-IP APM OWASP Tactical Access Defense Series: Unrestricted Resource Consumption
