How to block specific User-Agent in ASM Policy
Hi Experts , We are getting many requests from specific IP with the User Agent libcurl .We would like to block this user agent containing curl . Could you please help to configure the rule in the existing ASM Policy? I would like to apply the Policy for the URI - /bluewhale/api/ProdSearch . Dec 19 12:08:29 F5-ASM-PROD-P1 ASM:"2024-12-16 12:08:28";"213.X.X.X";"20179";"192.168.30.35";"443";"/Common/PRD_ASM_SSL";"GET";"passed";"9232836799849750123";"301";"/bluewhale/api/ProdSearch/Search";"N/A";"N/A";"0";"N/A";"N/A";"N/A";"N/A";"Host: www.example.com\r\nUser-Agent: libcurl/8.10.1 r-curl/6.0.1 httr/1.4.7\r\nAccept-Encoding: deflate, gzip\r\nAccept: application/json, text/xml, application/xml, */*\r\nX-Forwarded-For: 213.X.X.X\r\n\r\n"
F5 ASM Response logging show different timezone from Request logging
Dear All Respected Members, I have a question on f5 AWAF response logging. I am setting up a WAF policy to block attacks and monitor all traffic to and from the real servers. I can see the logs generated for both request & response, but it shown incorrect log timezone for responses. BIG-IP, real server and client are set local time zone GMT+7, but the repone logs are GMT. I have double checked timezone on all devices are configure correctly. Could you advise me what is the root cause and how to fix it? Thanks.[ASM] - content type : x-www-form-urlencoded ?
Hello Experts , what does content type : x-www-form-urlencoded means and also what is Parameter name sys06 ? Attack Signature ID 200002145 Name : SQL-INJ expressions like "having 1=1" (Parameter) Context Parameter (detected in Form Data) Parameter Level : Global Actual Parameter : Name : sys06JA4 Part 2: Detecting and Mitigating Based on Dynamic JA4 Reputation
In my previous article on JA4 I provided a brief introduction to what is JA4 and JA4+, and I shared an iRule that enables you to generate a JA4 client TLS fingerprint. But having a JA4 fingerprint (or any "identifier") is only valuable if you can take some action on it. It is even more valuable when you can take immediate action on it. In this article, I'll explain how I integrated F5 BIG-IP Advanced WAF with a third-party solution that allowed me to identify JA4s that were consistently doing "bad" things, build a list of those JA4s that have a "bad" reputation, pull that list into the F5 BIG-IP, and finally, make F5 Advanced WAF blocking decisions based on that reputation. Understanding JA4 Fingerprints It is important to understand that a JA4 TLS fingerprint, or any TLS fingerprint for that matter, is NOT a fingerprint of an individual instance of a device or browser. Rather, it is a fingerprint of a TLS "stack" or application. For example, all Chrome browsers of the same version and the same operating system will generate the same JA4 fingerprint*. Similarly, all Go HTTP clients with the same version and operating system will generate an identical JA4 fingerprint. Because of this, we have to be careful when taking action based on JA4 fingerprints. We cannot simply block in our various security devices based on JA4 fingerprint alone UNLESS we can be certain that ALL (or nearly all) requests with that JA4 are malicious. To make this determination, we need to watch requests over time. TLDR; I used CrowdSec Security Engine to build a JA4 real-time reputation database; and 3 irules, an iCall script, and a custom WAF violation to integrate that JA4 reputation into F5 BIG-IP Advanced WAF. CrowdSec and John Althouse - Serendipity While at Black Hat each year, I frequently browse the showroom floor (when I'm not working the F5 booth) looking for cool new technology, particularly cool new technology that can potentially be integrated with F5 security solutions. Last year I was browsing the floor and came across CrowdSec. As the name suggests, CrowdSec provides a crowd-sourced IP reputation service. I know, I know. On the surface this doesn't sound that exciting — there are hundreds of IP reputation services out there AND IP address, as an identifier of a malicious entity, is becoming (has become?) less and less valuable. So what makes CrowdSec any different? Two things jumped out at me as I looked at their solution. First, while they do provide a central crowd-sourced IP reputation service like everyone else, they also have "Security Engines". A security engine is an agent/application that you can install on-premises that can consume logs from your various security devices, process those logs based on "scenarios" that you define, and produce a reputation database based on those scenarios. This enables you to create an IP reputation feed that is based on your own traffic/logs and based on your own conditions and criteria for what constitutes "malicious" for your organization. I refer to this as "organizationally-significant" reputation. AND, because this list can be updated very frequently (every few seconds if you wanted) and pushed/pulled into your various security devices very frequently (again, within seconds), you are afforded the ability to block for much shorter periods of time and, possibly, more liberally. Inherent in such an architecture, as well, is the ability for your various security tools to share intelligence in near real-time. i.e. If your firewall identifies a bad actor, your WAF can know about that too. Within seconds! At this point you're probably wondering, "How does this have anything to do with JA4?" Second, while the CrowdSec architecture was built to provide IP reputation feeds, I discovered that it can actually create a reputation feed based on ANY "identifier". In the weeks leading up to Black Hat last year, I had been working with John Althouse on the JA4+ spec and was actually meeting him in person for the first time while there. So JA4 was at the forefront of my mind. I wondered if I could use CrowdSec to generate a reputation based on a JA4 fingerprint. Yes! You can! Deploying CrowdSec As soon as I got home from Black Hat, I started playing. I already had my BIG-IP deployed, generating JA4s, and including those in the WAF logs. Following the very good documentation on their site, I created an account on CrowdSec's site and deployed a CrowdSec Security Engine on an Ubuntu box that I deployed next to my BIG-IP. It is beyond the scope of this article to detail the complete deployment process but, I will include details relevant to this article. After getting the CrowdSec Security Engine deployed I needed to configure a parser so that the CrowdSec Security Engine (hereafter referred to simply as "SE") could properly parse the WAF logs from F5. Following their documentation, I created a YAML file at /etc/crowdsec/parsers/s01-parse/f5-waf-logs.yaml: onsuccess: next_stage debug: false filter: "evt.Parsed.program == 'ASM'" name: f5/waf-logs description: "Parse F5 ASM/AWAF logs" pattern_syntax: F5WAF: 'unit_hostname="%{DATA:unit_hostname}",management_ip_address="%{DATA:management_ip_address}",management_ip_address_2="%{DATA:management_ip_address_2}",http_class_name="%{DATA:http_class_name}",web_application_name="%{DATA:web_application_name}",policy_name="%{DATA:policy_name}",policy_apply_date="%{DATA:policy_apply_date}",violations="%{DATA:violations}",support_id="%{DATA:support_id}",request_status="%{DATA:request_status}",response_code="%{DATA:response_code}",ip_client="%{IP:ip_client}",route_domain="%{DATA:route_domain}",method="%{DATA:method}",protocol="%{DATA:protocol}",query_string="%{DATA:query_string}",x_forwarded_for_header_value="%{DATA:x_forwarded_for_header_value}",sig_ids="%{DATA:sig_ids}",sig_names="%{DATA:sig_names}",date_time="%{DATA:date_time}",severity="%{DATA:severity}",attack_type="%{DATA:attack_type}",geo_location="%{DATA:geo_location}",ip_address_intelligence="%{DATA:ip_address_intelligence}",username="%{DATA:username}",session_id="%{DATA:session_id}",src_port="%{DATA:src_port}",dest_port="%{DATA:dest_port}",dest_ip="%{DATA:dest_ip}",sub_violations="%{DATA:sub_violations}",virus_name="%{DATA:virus_name}",violation_rating="%{DATA:violation_rating}",websocket_direction="%{DATA:websocket_direction}",websocket_message_type="%{DATA:websocket_message_type}",device_id="%{DATA:device_id}",staged_sig_ids="%{DATA:staged_sig_ids}",staged_sig_names="%{DATA:staged_sig_names}",threat_campaign_names="%{DATA:threat_campaign_names}",staged_threat_campaign_names="%{DATA:staged_threat_campaign_names}",blocking_exception_reason="%{DATA:blocking_exception_reason}",captcha_result="%{DATA:captcha_result}",microservice="%{DATA:microservice}",tap_event_id="%{DATA:tap_event_id}",tap_vid="%{DATA:tap_vid}",vs_name="%{DATA:vs_name}",sig_cves="%{DATA:sig_cves}",staged_sig_cves="%{DATA:staged_sig_cves}",uri="%{DATA:uri}",fragment="%{DATA:fragment}",request="%{DATA:request}",response="%{DATA:response}"' nodes: - grok: name: "F5WAF" apply_on: message statics: - meta: log_type value: f5waf - meta: user expression: "evt.Parsed.username" - meta: source_ip expression: "evt.Parsed.ip_client" - meta:violation_rating expression:"evt.Parsed.violation_rating" - meta:request_status expression:"evt.Parsed.request_status" - meta:attack_type expression:"evt.Parsed.attack_type" - meta:support_id expression:"evt.Parsed.support_id" - meta:violations expression:"evt.Parsed.violations" - meta:sub_violations expression:"evt.Parsed.sub_violations" - meta:session_id expression:"evt.Parsed.session_id" - meta:sig_ids expression:"evt.Parsed.sig_ids" - meta:sig_names expression:"evt.Parsed.sig_names" - meta:method expression:"evt.Parsed.method" - meta:device_id expression:"evt.Parsed.device_id" - meta:uri expression:"evt.Parsed.uri" nodes: - grok: pattern: '%{GREEDYDATA}X-JA4: %{DATA:ja4_fp}\\r\\n%{GREEDYDATA}' apply_on: request statics: - meta: ja4_fp expression:"evt.Parsed.ja4_fp" Sending WAF Logs On the F5 BIG-IP, I created a logging profile to send the WAF logs to the CrowdSec Security Engine IP address and port. Defining "Scenarios" At this point, I had the WAF logs being sent to the SE and properly being parsed. Now I needed to define the "scenarios" or the conditions under which I wanted to trigger and alert for an IP address or, in this case, a JA4 fingerprint. For testing purposes, I initially created a very simple scenario that flagged a JA4 as malicious as soon as I saw 5 violations in a sliding 30 second window but only if the violation rating was 3 or higher. That worked great! But that would never be practical in the real world (see the Understanding JA4 Fingerprints section above). I created a more practical "scenario" that only flags a JA4 as malicious if we have seen at least X number of requests AND more than 90% of requests from that JA4 have triggered some WAF violation. The premise with this scenario is that there should be enough legitimate traffic from popular browsers and other client types to keep the percentage of malicious traffic from any of those JA4s below 90%. Again, following the CrowdSec documentation, I created a YAML file at /etc/crowdsec/scenarios/f5-waf-ja4-viol-percent.yaml: type: conditional name: f5/waf-ja4-viol-percent description: "Raise an alert if the percentage of requests from a ja4 finerprint is above X percent" filter: "evt.Meta.violations != 'JA4 Fingerprint Reputation'" blackhole: 300s leakspeed: 5m capacity: -1 condition: | len(queue.Queue) > 10 and (count(queue.Queue, Atof(#.Meta.violation_rating) > 1) / len(queue.Queue)) > 0.9 groupby: "evt.Meta.ja4_fp" scope: type: ja4_fp expression: evt.Meta.ja4_fp labels: service: f5_waf type: waf_ja4 remediation: true debug: false There are a few key lines to call out from this configuration file. leakspeed: This is the "sliding window" within which we are looking for our "scenarios". i.e. events "leak" out of the bucket after 5 minutes. condition: The conditions under which I want to trigger this bucket. For my scenario, I have defined a condition of at least 10 events (with in that 5 minute window) AND where the total number of events, divided by the number of events where the violation rating is above 1, is greater than 0.9. in other words, if more than 90% of the requests have triggered a WAF violation with a rating higher than 1. filter: used to filter out events that you don't want to include in this scenario. In my case, I do not want to include requests where the only violation is the "JA4 Fingerprint Reputation" violation. groupby: this defines how I want to group requests. Typiiccally, in most CrowdSec scenarios this wil be some IP address field from the logs. In my scenario, I wanted to group by the JA4 fingerprint parsed out of the WAF logs. blackhole: this defines how long I want to "silence" alerts per JA4 fingerprint after this scenario has triggered. This prevents the same scenario from triggering repeatedly every time a new request comes into the bucket. scope: the scope is used by the reputation service to "categorize" alerts triggered by scenarios. the type field is used to define the type of data that is being reported. In most CrowdSec scenarios the type is "ip". In my case, I defined a custom type of "ja4_fp" with an "expression" (or value) of the JA4 fingerprint extracted from the WAF logs. Defining "Profiles" In the CrowdSec configuration "profiles" are used to define the remediation that should be taken when a scenario is triggered. I edited the /etc/crowdsec/profiles.yaml file to include the new profile for my JA4 scenario. name: ban_ja4_fp filters: - Alert.Remediation == true && Alert.GetScope() == "ja4_fp" decisions: - type: ban scope: "ja4_fp" duration: 5m debug: true on_success: continue --- ##### Everything below this point was already in the profiles.yaml file. Truncated here for brevity. name: default_ip_remediation #debug: true filters: - Alert.Remediation == true && Alert.GetScope() == "Ip" decisions: ... on_success: break Again, there are a few key lines from this configuration file. First, I only added a new profile named "ban_ja4_fp" with lines 1 through 9 in the file above. filters: Used to define which triggered scenarios should be included in this profile. In my case, all scenarios with the "remediation" label AND the "ja4_fp" scope. decisions: Used to define what type of remediation should be taken, for which "scope", and for how long. In my case, I chose the default of "ban", for the "ja4_fp" scope, and for 5 minutes. With this configuration in place I sent several malicious requests from my browser to my test application protected by the F5 Advanced WAF. I then checked the CrowdSec decisions list and voila! I had my browser's JA4 fingerprint listed! This was great but I wanted to be able to take action based on this intelligence in the F5 WAF. CrowdSec has the concept of "bouncers". Bouncers are devices the can take action on the remediation decisions generated by the SEs. Technically, anything that can call the local CrowdSec API and take some remediating action can be a bouncer. So, using the CLI on the CrowdSec SE, I defined a new "bouncer" for the F5 BIG-IP. ubuntu@xxxxxxxx:~$ sudo cscli bouncer add f5-bigip Api key for 'f5-bigip': xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Please keep this key since you will not be able to retrieve it! I knew that I could write an iRule that could call the SE API. However, the latency introduced by a sideband API call on EVERY HTTP request would just be completely untenable. I wanted a way to download the entire reputation list at a regular interval and store it on the F5 BIG-IP in a way that would be easily and efficiently accessible from the data plane. This sounded like a perfect job for an iCall script. Customizing the F5 BIG-IP Configuration If you are not familiar with iCall scripts, they are a programmatic way of checking or altering the F5 configuration based on some trigger; they are to the F5 BIG-IP management plane what iRules are to the data plane. The trigger can be some event, condition, log message, time interval, etc. I needed my iCall script to do two things. First, pull the reputation list from the CrowdSec SE. Second, store that list somewhere accessible to the F5 data plane. Like many of you, my first thought was either an iFile or a data group. Both of these are easily configurable components accessible via iCall scripts that are also accessible via iRules. For several reasons that I will not bother to detail here, I did not want to use either of these solutions, primarily for performance reasons (this reputation lookup needs to be very performant). And the most performant place to store information like this is the session table. The session table is accessible to iRules via "table" commands. However, the session table is not accessible via iCall scripts. At least not directly. I realized that I could send an HTTP request using the iCall script, AND that HTTP request could be to a local virtual server on the same BIG-IP where I could use an iRule to populate the session table with the JA4 reputation list pulled from the CrowdSec SE. The iCall Script From the F5 BIG-IP CLI I created the following iCall script using the tmsh command 'tmsh create sys icall script crowdsec_ja4_rep_update': sys icall script crowdsec_ja4_rep_update { app-service none definition { package require http set csapi_resp [http::geturl http://10.0.2.240:8080/v1/decisions/stream?startup=true&scopes=ja4_fp -headers "X-api-Key 1a234xxxxxxxxxxxxxxe56fab7"] #tmsh::log "[http::data ${csapi_resp}]" set payload [http::data ${csapi_resp}] http::cleanup ${csapi_resp} set tupdate_resp [http::geturl http://10.0.1.110/updatetables -type "application/json" -query ${payload}] tmsh::log "[http::data ${tupdate_resp}]" http::cleanup ${tupdate_resp} } description none events none } Let's dig through this iCall script line by line: 4. Used to "require" or "include" the TCL http library. 5. HTTP request to the CrowdSec API to get the JA4 reputation list. 10.0.2.240:8080 is the IP:port of the CrowdSec SE API /v1/decisions/stream is the API endpoint used to grab an entire reputation list (rather than just query for the status of an individual IP/JA4) startup=true tells the API to send the entire list, not just additions/deletions since the last API call scopes=ja4_fp limits the returned results to just JA4 fingerprint-type decisions -headers "X-api-Key xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" includes the API key generated previously to authenticate the F5 BIG-IP as a "bouncer" 7. Store just the body of the API response in a variable called "payload" 8. free up memory used by the HTTP request tot eh CrowdSec API 9. HTTP Request to a local virtual server (on the same F5 BIG-IP) including the contents of the "payload" variable as the POST body. The IP address needs to be the IP address of the virtual server defined in the next step. An iRule will be created and placed on this virtual server that parses the "payload" and inserts the JA4 reputation list into the session table. An iCall script will not run unless an iCall handler is created that defines when that iCall script should run. I call handlers can be "triggered", "perpetual", or "periodic". I created the following periodic iCall handler to run this iCall script at regular intervals. sys icall handler periodic crowdsec-api-ja4 { interval 30 script crowdsec_ja4_list } This iCall handler is very simple; it has an "interval" for how often you want to run the script and the script that you want to run. I chose to run the iCall script every 30 seconds so that the BIGIP session table would be updated with any new malicious JA4 fingerprints very quickly. But you could choose to run the iCall script every 1 minute, 5 minutes, etc. The Table Updater Virtual Server and iRule I then created a HTTP virtual server with no pool associated to it. This virtual server exists solely to accept and process the HTTP requests from the iCall script. I then created the following iRule to process the requests and payload from the iCall script: proc duration2seconds {durstr} { set h 0 set m 0 set s 0 regexp {(\d+)h} ${durstr} junk h regexp {(\d+)m} ${durstr} junk m regexp {(\d+)\.} ${durstr} junk s set seconds [expr "(${h}*3600) + (${m}*60) + ${s}"] return $seconds } when HTTP_REQUEST { if { ([HTTP::uri] eq "/updatetables" || [HTTP::uri] eq "/lookuptables") && [HTTP::method] eq "POST"} { HTTP::collect [HTTP::header value "content-length"] } else { HTTP::respond 404 } } when HTTP_REQUEST_DATA { #log local0. "PAYLOAD: '[HTTP::payload]'" regexp {"deleted":\[([^\]]+)\]} [HTTP::payload] junk cs_deletes regexp {"new":\[([^\]]+)\]} [HTTP::payload] junk cs_adds if { ![info exists cs_adds] } { HTTP::respond 200 content "NO NEW ENTRIES" return } log local0. "CS Additions: '${cs_adds}'" set records [regexp -all -inline -- {\{([^\}]+)\},?} ${cs_adds}] set update_list [list] foreach {junk record} $records { set urec "" foreach k {scope value type scenario duration} { set v "" regexp -- "\"${k}\":\"?(\[^\",\]+)\"?,?" ${record} junk v log local0. "'${k}': '${v}'" if { ${k} eq "duration" } { set v [call duration2seconds ${v}] } append urec "${v}:" } set urec [string trimright ${urec} ":"] #log local0. "$urec" lappend update_list ${urec} } set response "" foreach entry $update_list { scan $entry {%[^:]:%[^:]:%[^:]:%[^:]:%s} scope entity type scenario duration if { [HTTP::uri] eq "/updatetables" } { table set "${scope}:${entity}" "${type}:${scenario}" indefinite $duration append response "ADDED ${scope}:${entity} FOR ${duration} -- " } elseif { [HTTP::uri] eq "/lookuptables" } { set remaining "" set action "" if { [set action [table lookup ${scope}:${entity}]] ne "" } { set remaining [table lifetime -remaining ${scope}:${entity}] append response "${scope}:${entity} - ${action} - ${remaining}s remaining\r\n" } else { append response "${scope}:${entity} - NOT IN TABLE\r\n" } } } HTTP::respond 200 content "${response}" } I have attempted to include sufficient inline comments so that the iRule is self-explanatory. If you have any questions or comments on this iRule please feel free to DM me. It is important to note here that the iRule is storing not only each JA4 fingerprint in the session table as a key but also the metadata passed back from the CrowdSec API about each JA4 reputation as the value for each key. This metadata includes the scenario name, the "type" or action, and the duration. So at this point I had a JA4 reputation list, updated continuously based on the WAF violation logs and CrowdSec scenarios. I also had an iCall script on the F5 BIG-IP that was pulling that reputation list via the local CrowdSec API every 30 seconds and pushing that reputation list into the local session table on the BIG-IP. Now I just needed to take some action based on that reputation list. Integrating JA4 Reputation into F5 WAF To integrate the JA4 reputation into the F5 Advanced WAF we only need two things: a custom violation defined in the WAF an iRule to lookup the JA4 in the local session table and raise that violation Creating a Custom Violation Creating a custom violation in F5 Advanced WAF (or ASM) will vary slightly depending on which version of the TMOS software you are running. In version 17.1 it is at Security ›› Options : Application Security : Advanced Configuration : Violations List. Select the User-Defined Violations tab and click Create. Give the Violation a Title and define the Type, Severity, and Attack Type. Finally, I modified the Learning and Blocking Settings of my policy to ensure that the new custom violation was set to Alarm and Block. F5 iRule for Custom Violation I then created the following iRule to raise this new custom WAF violation if the JA4 fingerprint is found in the reputation list in the local session table. when ASM_REQUEST_DONE { # Grab JA4 fingerprint from x-ja4 header # This header is inserted by the JA4 irule set ja4_fp [HTTP::header value "x-ja4"] # Lookup JA4 fingerprint in session table if { [set result [table lookup "ja4_fp:${ja4_fp}"]] ne "" } { # JA4 was found in session table, scan the value to get "category" and "action" scan ${result} {%[^:]:%s} action category # Initialize all the nested list of lists format required for the # violation details of the ASM::raise command set viol [] set viol_det1 [] set viol_det2 [] set viol_det3 [] # Populate the variables with values parsed from the session table for this JA4 lappend viol_det1 "JA4 FP" "${ja4_fp}" lappend viol_det2 "CrowdSec Category" "${category}" lappend viol_det3 "CrowdSec Action" "${action}" lappend viol ${viol_det1} ${viol_det2} ${viol_det3} # Raise custom ASM violation with violation details ASM::raise VIOL_JA4_REPUTATION ${viol} } } Again, I tried to include enough inline documentation for the iRule to be self-explanatory. Seeing It All In Action With everything in place, I sent several requests, most malicious and some benign, to the application protected by the F5 Advanced WAF. Initially, only the malicious requests were blocked. After about 60 seconds, ALL of the requests were being blocked due to the new custom violation based on JA4 reputation. Below is a screenshot from one of my honeypot WAF instances blocking real "in-the-wild" traffic based on JA4 reputation. Note that the WAF violation includes (1) the JA4 fingerprint, (2) the "category" (or scenario), and (3) the "action" (or type). Things to Note The API communication between the F5 BIG-IP and the CrowdSec SE is over HTTP. This is obviously insecure; for this proof-of-concept deployment I was just too lazy to spend the extra time to get signed certs on all the devices involved and alter the iCall script to use the TCL SSL library.
Need a Benchmark documents for F5 Advanced WAF or Big-IP or etc.
Hi All There are many other security product OEMs also provide Benchmark documents to configure their products to get maximum security or maximum utilization which leads to maximum profit for the user. My query is, does F5 provide Benchmark documents for their product like Advanced WAF or Big-IP etc.". If yes, can anyone give me the link where I can check or download to use those?F5 BIG-IP Advanced WAF: OWASP Top 10 Application Security Risks 2021 Compliance Dashboard
Introduction The increase in vulnerabilities and application or API-related attacks exploiting those vulnerabilities has steadily risen. Vulnerabilities like Log4j, and the Log4Shell exploit are spawned and continue to impact many organizations even today. This is where a web application firewall (WAF) solution can protect your apps and APIs. One of the most respected authorities in web application security is the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP). OWASP is anopen-sourceproject to improve web application security, a coalition of individual contributors and sponsor companies who come together to contribute resources to the project. One of the best-known resources the project delivers is the OWASP Top 10 List. Since web application vulnerability risks change frequently, becoming comparatively more or less critical over time, the OWASP Top 10 List is periodically updated to reflect these changes. The first version of the list was created in 2004, then updated in 2007, 2010, 2013, 2017, and again in 2021 (its most recent version). Figure 1: OWASP Top 10 Web Application Security Risks of 2021 F5 delivers a number of security solutions to help mitigate vulnerabilities in the OWASP categories, and the exploits that are produced from them. To ensure you’re compliant with the OWASP Top 10, F5 BIG-IP Advanced WAF offers a dedicated OWASP compliance dashboard that enables security admins to check how well their policy is set to defend against the OWASP Top 10 and allow organizations to easily reach 100% coverage. The solution makes it simple to modify policies to improve protection from exploit of vulnerabilities in the OWASP Top 10. The compliance dashboard provides a holistic and interactive view that shows the level of mitigation applied by SecOps team against the OWASP Top 10 vulnerability categories. It provides an overall assessment of the policies created and a percentage of how much the policies protect against the various vulnerability categories. The dashboard allows SecOps to increase/adjust the level of protection in real-time based on their needs by deploying pre-defined policies that mitigate the vulnerabilities and their associated exploits. This can be achieved directly from the BIG-IP Advanced WAF’s OWASP Top 10 2021 Dashboard, simplifying protection against known, unknown, and hidden vulnerabilities. Simple, quick, and easy vulnerability and exploit protection, from a single dashboard. Protection Overview Navigating to the OWASP Compliance screen, you can see the list of all the security policies. Clicking on a policy displays the OWASP compliance status for that policy and the coverage for each category. Figure 2: OWASP Compliance screen Expanding a category presents the compliance percentage, a description of that security risk, and the configuration required for full security coverage for this category.Each category is broken down into specific security protections, including positive and negative security controls that can be enabled, disabled, or ignored directly on the dashboard based on your organization’s requirements. Required Attack Signatures: Enforce all the relevant Attack Signatures for this attack type directly from the Dashboard. Required Policy Entities: Add protection configuration components such as Cookies and login Enforcement, data masking, Evasion techniques,detection, methods, URLs, and more relevant configurations for each attack type. In addition to WAF-specific security protections, the OWASP Compliance Dashboard also provides security Best Practices to follow in your processes, such as vulnerability scanning or using trusted repositories. Figure 3: OWASP category A03 Injection – protection and compliance The following video shows how to monitor the compliance coverage of security risks and how to quickly enhance anorganization'ssecurity configuration directly from the dashboard to receive full compliance with protection from OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities being actively exploited. Conclusion Web applications remain a top target for threats, such as automated attacks, data exfiltration, and vulnerabilities. But F5 can help! Not only can you check off regulatory compliance, but also be able to create reports via the security score relative to deployed policies that addressthe OWASP Top 10, enabling security admins to view each policy’s coverage status, improving protections if necessary, and even allowing security configuration to be performed directly from the dashboard. To learn more, please visit: How to deploy a basic OWASP Top 10 for 2021 compliant declarative WAF policy for BIG-IP K45215395: Guide introduction and contents | Secure against the OWASP Top 10 for 2021 K000135973: Guide Introduction and contents | APIs and the OWASP Top 10 guide (2023) Mitigating OWASP API Security risks using BIG-IP BIG-IP Advanced WAF Webpage Overview of BIG-IP
Can BIG-IQ forward ASM event log which receive from BIG-IP to syslog server?
Hi Right now we have all BIG-IP send ASM event log to BIG-IQ. Question is Can BIG-IQ forward ASM event log which receive from BIG-IP to syslog server? or I need to config on each BIG-IP to send ASM event log to both (BIG-IQ and syslog server) instead.
AWAF Path Parameters with OPENAPI json file
Hi, Iam securing a API with a JSON OPENAPI file it mostly works fine however I have two positional parameters used in one url that seems to mask the following paths "/dqm/v1/projects/{customerId}/{pageNumber} &/dqm/v1/projects/projectDetails/{workRequestId}" The result is illegal parameter length violations on a url that is actually valid. the two paths have different operationId headers associated with them Does the WAF use the operationId to match the Path? It appears not as if I delete the operation Id from the api file then the policy matches the correct URL. Any assistance in ubderstanding what is happening and why is appreaciated. Allowed URL's extract from JSON openAPI file /dqm/v1/projects/{customerId}/{pageNumber}: get: tags: - customer-projects-controller operationId: getCustomerProjectsForIdperPage parameters: - name: customerId in: path required: true schema: type: string - name: pageNumber in: path required: true schema: type: string responses: '200': description: OK content: '*/*': schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/CustomerProjectsResponse' /dqm/v1/projects/projectDetails/{workRequestId}: get: tags: - customer-projects-controller operationId: getProjectDetailswithID parameters: - name: workRequestId in: path required: true schema: type: string responses: '200': description: OK content: '*/*': schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/ProjectDetailsResponse'
ASM/WAF policy - Parameter value type was determined to be "XML value" but really it is "HTML"
Hi, hoping someone can help with this issue. F5 WAF suggested that the parameter "text" should be "XML value". I agreed and and I'm using the default XML content profile. However the actual value looks like HTML code to me, which is not an option anywhere AFAIK. Mostly there are no issues, except for some special situations likethis particular request that contains "(" and ")" characters in the value. As a result I'm getting an error: XML Buffer ( Description Malformed document Illegal data between tags Context Parameter Location Form Data Parameter Level Global Parameter Name text Parameter Value *************** The request looks very similar to the one below: POST /aaa/bbb HTTP/1.1 Host: aaa.bbb.org Connection: keep-alive Content-Length: 00000 sec-ch-ua: " Not A;Brand";v="99", "Chromium";v="101", "Google Chrome";v="101" Accept: */* Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=UTF-8 X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest sec-ch-ua-mobile: ?0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.54 Safari/537.36 sec-ch-ua-platform: "Windows" Origin: https://aaa.bbb.org Sec-Fetch-Site: same-origin Sec-Fetch-Mode: cors Sec-Fetch-Dest: empty Referer: https://aaa.bbb.org Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.9 Cookie: ************ X-Forwarded-For: 1.1.1.1 text=<b>aaa+aa.+11111+aa+aaaaaaa+111+1111+</b>(<a+href="https://www.ccc.org/ddd/111/ppp.pdf">aaaa11.222</a>+-+oooooooooo)+(eeeeeeeee+jjjjjjjjjj+1,+2222) &input_format=full_html&token=xxxxxxxxxxxx Is there any way to tweak the XML content profile to make this work, or should I switch the parameter to user-input/alphanumericand add the HTML meta characters as allowed?
