Need help with ICAP integration with F5 LTM
I have followed thisKB article and created a standard http virtual server with web server and an internal virtual server with icap pool. Both virtual servers and pools are healthy and available. However when the http virtual server IP is accessed, it resets the connection ("reset" is the service down action). I am not sure why it behaves as if the ICAP service is down when it is not down and the icap pool health checks are passing.Also, I can see in the local traffic module statistics that no traffic is reaching ICAP virtual server. Appreciate if someone can help to spot any issues with my setup or help me to understand how to troubleshoot connectivity to internal icap virtual server.
ICAP server reachable, however ASM claims communication issues
Greetings, I have encountered a situation where I have implemented basic AV protection to a server. Tests with EICAR file work fine from internal and external networks (should not really matter). The thing is that on some occasions I noticed that the file upload had been blocked but the Virus violation states: "Virus detection was not performed due to communication problem. See details here: /ts/log/bd.log" There is no relevant info in that log file. Guaranteed enforcement was turned on, so I guess that's why the block took place. But the real question is - why is it complaining about not being able to communicate with the ICAP server? When I run a test from any network, it blocks it just right and the violation is described accurately. Whenever this has happened there have been multiple generic violations detected with the traffic as well, but ONLY AV protection is in Blocking mode - generic signatures are just alerting for analysis. Does anyone have more experience with such cases? Any ideas why this is happening? Thank you!ASM Custom Violation for ICAP Scanning
Hello Folks, I recently started building ICAP AV Scanning configurations on F5 LTM. Looks like most of it is pretty easy to configure following some docs on support site. But the blocker is, i'm trying to Raise a violation using iRules and ASM custom violations. Please see iRule below when ADAPT_REQUEST_RESULT { log local0. "ICAP response is [ADAPT::result]" if { ! ([ADAPT::result] contains "modify") } { set icap_blocked 1 ADAPT::result bypass } else { set icap_blocked 0 } } when ASM_REQUEST_DONE { if { [info exists icap_blocked] && $icap_blocked == 1 } { ASM::raise ICAP log local0. "Raising custom ASM Violation." set icap_blocked 0 } } So far, scanning the files and allowing or blocking the request is working just fine. When it comes to raising a custom violation to the user when a malicious file is uploaded, i'm not seeing any response pages i set on ASM. Please see the procedure below: 1.Configured AV Scanning following the document(link above) 2.Created a security Policy on ASM with Blocking enforcement mode(Security->Application Security->Security Policies) 3.Created a custom violation under Security->Options->Application security -> Advanced Configuration -> Violation list->User-Defined Violations->create. See below Now, Created a blocking response page under Security->Application Security->Blocking->Response Pages See below Response Headers: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache Connection: close Response Body: Request RejectedThe requested URL was rejected. Please consult with your administrator. Your support ID is: <%TS.request.ID()%> After assigning iRule to the ICAP Virtual server, I uploaded a virus file from a web portal that points to ICAP Virtual IP, and its being blocked. But i'm not seeing the response page i created. Any help is much appreciated! Thanks I know this is too much information. Just thought it would help someone in future . I appreciate your patience 🙂
ADAPT::enable not valid in context of HTTP_REQUEST_DATA
Hi, I'm writing an iRule to pass HTTP POSTs selectively through an ICAP proxy. Using the ADAPT::enable request <0|1> works fine in the context of HTTP_REQUEST as described in a couple of threads. As I'm parsing a multipart upload (potentially consisting of multiple files) for specific files (based on the file extension and announced Content-Type; information can be found in the payload only and is not part of the request headers) I have to use HTTP::collect first. Finally I want to decide in the context of HTTP_REQUEST_DATA to bypass the ICAP or not. Unfortunately the ADAPT::enable request <0|1> is not permitted in this context: [command is not valid in current event context (HTTP_REQUEST_DATA)][ADAPT::enable request 1] (I have tried both TMOS v11.5.4HF2 and TMOS v12.1.1HF1 resulting in the same error message.) Any idea how to get this fixed? Using a second virtual server might be an option. (Btw, there is already a virtual server in front of it to terminate SSL as I have to use TCP::respond to return 100 Continue interim responses for the incoming POSTs.) Collecting all POST data on TCP level and doing the analytics in context of CLIENT_DATA might be another option. Thanks in advance for your ideas, Cheers, Stephan
Custom HTML page for ASM Virus Detection - ICAP
Hello Folks, One of customers is using KasperSky Proxy server as an ICAP integration with ASM. (Running on 11.3.0 HF8). Which is working well, and ICAP is detecting malicious and legitimate file well. Now the requirement comes as to display a custom HTML page when ASM detects a Virus based on ICAP confirmation. I have tried creating an iRule by taking help from DecCentral, and made something as following. when ASM_REQUEST_BLOCKING { set x [ASM::violation_data] for {set i 0} { $i < 7 } {incr i} { switch $i { 0 { log local0. "violation=[lindex $x $i]" } 1 { log local0. "support_id=[lindex $x $i]" } 2 { log local0. "web_application=[lindex $x $i]" } 3 { log local0. "severity=[lindex $x $i]" } 4 { log local0. "source_ip=[lindex $x $i]" } 5 { log local0. "attack_type=[lindex $x $i]" } 6 { log local0. "request_status=[lindex $x $i]" } }} if {([lindex $x 5] contains "ATTACK_TYPE_MALICIOUS_FILE_UPLOAD")} { HTTP::header remove Content-Length HTTP::header insert header_1 value_1 set response "Apology PageWe are sorry,\ but the site you are looking for is temporarily out of service\ If you feel you have reached this page in error, please try again." ASM::payload replace 0 [ASM::payload length] "" ASM::payload replace 0 0 $response } } However it seems that iRule is not triggering at all. Any idea what I am missing here? Thank you, Darshan
ASM: insert header when a virus is found
Hello, I tried to configure a iRule to add a HTTP header in the POST request which uploads a file to an origin server. This HTTP header should contain the ASM support ID only when there is a virus detected via ICAP, but it should NOT block the client request. I also configured in ASM policy "Trigger ASM iRule Events" in Normal Mode. I am using 12.1.2. Do you have an idea? I tried this but the HTTP header is not inserted (but i get a log message that the virus was found... Feb 26 17:48:38 bigip info tmm[23970]: Rule /Common/AV : VIOLATION_VIRUS_DETECTED detected, uri=/virus.php) when ASM_REQUEST_VIOLATION { if {([ASM::violation_data] contains "VIOLATION_VIRUS_DETECTED")} { log local0. "VIOLATION_VIRUS_DETECTED detected, uri=[HTTP::uri]" set supp_id [ASM::support_id] } } when HTTP_REQUEST_RELEASE { if {[info exists supp_id]} { HTTP::header insert X-ASM-SUPPORT-ID "VIRUS DETECTEED and support ID $supp_id" } }
F5 ASM with fortisandbox
Hi i want to integrate f5 ASM with fortisandbox as a icap server for file upload inspection i found this articalehttps://support.f5.com/csp/article/K70941653 butValue of virus_header_name for fortisandbox is not mentioned any one has experince of integration with fortisandbox. please let me know if anyone knowvirus_header_name for fortisandboxASM and OPSWAT Metadefender Blank Page after file upload
Hi, I am trying to integrate F5 ASM WAF with OPSWAT metadefender but when I try and upload and EICAR file browser just shows a blank white page. I am using a default security policy in blocking mode and have configured the settings according to the F5 BIG IP ASM (WAF) OPSAWT guide. I have configured the ICAP server under Security>Options>Application Security>Integrated Services>Anti-Virus Protection. I have configured the antivirus block settings under Security>Application Security>Policy Building>Learning and Blocking Settings>Advanced Configuration. I have antivirus scanning for HTTP file uploads and SOAP attachments Security>Application Security>Integrated Services>Anti-Virus Protection. When I try to upload the test file I get a blank browser and if I check the source code in the browser I see the following: window["bobcmn"] = "101110101010102000000022ffffffff2ffffffff20000000220156c0ea200000000200000000200000000300000044multipart%2fform%2ddata%3b%20boundary%3d%2d%2d%2d%2dWebKitFormBounda300000000300000000300000000300000000300000007httpsc3000000b008a59e5661ab20000adb568196d38950bf7928e988d64266cafbda4956605335d523cb0c44e211db089aede8158b2800a5d271c7e2a6f9d94d8c4ad7cd49022d5f72b236f5ca5943b07c111a9484727f3b29e542d2d2302b300000002TS300000165%2d%2d%2d%2d%2d%2dWebKitFormBoundaryxbm3Qt79jKjmxoOz Content%2dDisposition%3a%20form%2ddata%3b%20name%3d%22filename%22%3b%20filename%3d%22eicar.com%22 Content%2dType%3a%20application%2foctet%2dstream X5O!P%25@AP[4%5cPZX54(P%5e)7CC)7}%24EICAR%2dSTANDARD%2dANTIVIRUS%2dTEST%2dFILE!%24H%2bH%2a %2d%2d%2d%2d%2d%2dWebKitFormBoundaryxbm3Qt79jKjmxoOz%2d%2d 200000000"; "</script> </APM_DO_NOT_TOUCH> <script type="text/javascript" src="/TSbd/08a59e5661ab2000a21cb91986bc897b6b354965ec350caba4c8ca55a7b089798844a4727e8dc553?type=5"></script><noscript>Please enable JavaScript to view the page content.<br/>Your support ID is:8648386876400468880.</noscript> </head><body> </body></html>" Is there something in the ASM policy that needs to be changed?
Modify HTTP response from ICAP server on BigIP
Hi all, I'm facing the following problem with an ICAP setup: What we want is AV scanning of file uploads to a web page using ICAP on the BigIP. This is done by using a request adapt profile in conjunction with an internal virtual with ICAP profile. We want all POST requests to a specific upload path to be sent to an ICAP server that performs AV scanning. When finding an infected upload, the ICAP server will respond with an ICAP result "respond" (instead of "modify") and return an http 403 error page (we cannot change that behaviour). The upload (POST request) will not reach the webserver in that case. Up to that point, we could get all of this working properly. Unfortunately, the client application (third party product) will throw an unexpected and undefined error upon receiving an http 403 status code. In order to display a meaningful error message to the end user, the application expects an http status code 901 instead. As already mentioned, we can neither change the http 403 error returned by the ICAP server (third party product), nor the need/expectation for an http 901 status by the web application (also third party product). Hence, we plan to rewrite the http 403 reply (of the ICAP server) into an http 901 status on the bigip, resulting in the following setup: click here I tried to address this issue with the following iRule: when HTTP_REQUEST { if { [HTTP::uri] starts_with "/some/path/to/file/uploads" } { log local0. "Upload detected - activating ICAP" ADAPT::enable request true set icap_enabled 1 set icap_respond 0 } else { ADAPT::enable request false set icap_enabled 0 set icap_respond 0 } } when ADAPT_REQUEST_RESULT { set result [ADAPT::result] log local0. "ICAP RESULT received. Result: $result" if { $result == "respond" } { set icap_respond 1 log local0. "ICAP MATCH respond" } } when HTTP_RESPONSE { if { $icap_enabled == 1 } { if { $icap_respond == 1 } { HTTP::respond 901 log local0. "Upload ICAP response detected - sending http 901 to client." } } } Unfortunately, this does not work, since the HTTP_RESPONSE event will not be triggered by the ICAP response, because it is not coming from a server as the wiki page states: HTTP_RESPONSE is specific to a server response passing through the load balancer, and is not triggered for locally-generated responses HTTP_RESPONSE_RELEASE is also not a suitable event, because it does not allow HTTP::respond actions. Trying to do the HTTP::respond action within the ADAPT_REQUEST_RESULT event block will result in TCL errors during execution and break down the whole virtual. Does anybody have ideas on how to address this issue properly? I'm running out of ideas. Many thanks in advance! Martin
SharePoint 2016 large file upload and LTM ICAP configuration
Hi Guys, I have a special case here: Configuration: BigIP Version 13 HTTPS VS (SharePoint Web App with adapt request/response profiles) ICAP VS (Internal with an icap profile) ICAP sever Bluecoat ProxySG with a Symantec scan engine What's happening: When I upload a file with a size less than 100 MB SharePoint upload page sends the file to the SharePoint server in a single block with the header content-type mutilpart. LTM ICAP client sends the file to the ICAP Server (bluecoat) and the file gets scanned and we get back a response according to what we expect. Pass if clean and block is virus detected. Now if I upload a file bigger the 100 MB SharePoint switches to REST API mode and sends the file in multiple chunks of 8MB. The LTM ICAP client sends the files to the ICAP server (bluecoat) and the files get scanned and we get a response for the all the files scanned BUT the answer is always 'file is CLEAN' even if we test with a 110 MB zip file containing an eicar file or multiple eicar files or even a pack or 500MB of real deadly viruses :-) SharePoint sends the file chunks in a JSON payload with the header ACCPET: application/json Anyone managed to make file uploads bigger than 100MB scannable with this type of setup? Any configuration steps I'm missing to make the 110MB zip file scannable when it arrives in small chunks on the ICAP server. I understand that this might be an issue with the ICAP server but I want to rule out the LTM configuration. We are talking to talking to Broadcom/Symantec too. It will not be possible to do anything on the SharePoint side unfortunately since this is the preferred method of uploading large files.
