WAF Policy upload using AS3
I am using per-app declaration to upload multiple WAF policies in an app. when I post the declaration using POST command, i only get 202 accepted, and in the backend, the F5 uploads the ASM policies. How can I get to know iff all the policies are uploaded successfully or if any have failed? Is there any command or rest api? POST : https:/<f5ip>/mgmt/shared/appsvcs/declare/Demo/applications { "id": "per-app-declaration", "schemaVersion": "3.54.2", "controls": { "class": "Controls", "logLevel": "debug", "trace": true }, "WMS_ASM": { "class": "Application", "template": "generic", "wms_Dispatcher_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_Dispatcher_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_MessageStoreAPI_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_MessageStoreAPI_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_abdg_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_abdg_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_auth_asm_v173": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_auth_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_carrier-info_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_carrier-info_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_cas_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_cas_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_csdui_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_csdui_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_csrkodiak_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_csrkodiak_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_getContactAddlInfo_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_getContactAddlInfo_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_keymanagement_asm_v174": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_keymanagement_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_kodiakidsprov_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_kodiakidsprov_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_lcms_asm_v173": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_lcms_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_mcsxcap_asm_v173": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_mcsxcap_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_mobileapi_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_mobileapi_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_ngcat_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_ngcat_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_oidcxcap_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_oidcxcap_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_tpams_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_tpams_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_wcsr_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_wcsr_asm_file.xml" }, "wms_webdispatcher_asm_v172": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_webdispatcher_asm_file.xml" } } }
Is it possible to select ASM BoT profile from irule?
Hi. . Is it possible to select BoT profile from irule? . Concept is we have different set of IP which need to allow "some" BoT type. That why we can't use whitelist IP in BoT profile because it will allow all BoT type. So We want to use iRule to check if it IP A > use BoT profile which have some exception, but if all other IP > use normally BoT profile. . when HTTP_REQUEST { # Check IP and select BoT profile from that if { [IP::client_addr] eq "A" } { ASM::enable allow_some_bot_profile } else { ASM::enable normally_bot_profile } } ps. I didn't see any document about how to select BoT profile. So I'm not sure if ASM::enable can do that.AS3 Storage
I declared 2 WAF polices using AS3, now I deleted one using the tmsh command. In the bigip.conf I can see only 1 WAF policy, but while I do a GET api call for that App, I am still getting 2 WAF policies. It is persistent on reboots. Where does F5 store the AS3 declaration? From where am I getting both the WAF policies (from where f5 is returning the original as3 declaration?) in Rest api : https:///mgmt/shared/appsvcs/declare/Dummy/applications/SYNCGW_Common "wms_egls_asm_v174": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_egls_asm_file.xml", "ignoreChanges": true }, "wms_egls_asm_v173": { "class": "WAF_Policy", "file": "/var/tmp/v17/wms_egls_asm_file.xml", "ignoreChanges": true } In Bigip.conf: asm policy /Dummy/SYNCGW_Common/wms_egls_asm_v174 { active encoding utf-8 }Trigger js challenge/Captcha for ip reputation/ip intelligence categories
Problem solved by this Code Snippet Because some ISP or cloud providers do not monitor their users a lot of times client ip addresses are marked as "spam sources" or "windows exploits" and as the ip addresses are dynamic and after time a legitimate user can use this ip addresses the categories are often stopped in the IP intelligence profile or under the ASM/AWAF policy. This usually happens in Public Clouds that do not monitor what their users do and the IP gets marked as bad then another good user after a day or two has this ip address and this causes the issue. For many of my clients I had to stop the ip reputation/ip intelligence category "spam sources" and in some cases "windows exploits" so having a javascript/captcha checks seems a nice compromise 😎 To still make use of this categories the users coming from those ip addresses can be forced to solve captcha checks or at least to be checked for javascript support! How to use this Code Snippet Have AWAF/ASM and ip intelligence licensed Add AWAF/ASM policy with irule support option (by default not enabled under the policy) or/and Bot profile under the Virtual server Optionally add IP intelligence profile or enable the Ip intelligence under the WAF policy without the categories that cause a lot of false positives, Add the irule and if needed modify the categories for which it triggers Do not forget to first create the data group, used in the code or delete that part of the code and to uncomment the Bot part of the code, if you plan to do js check and not captcha and maybe comment the captcha part ! Code Snippet Meta Information Version: 17.1.3 Coding Language: TCL Code You can find the code and further documentation in my GitHub repository: reputation-javascript-captcha-challlenge/ at main · Nikoolayy1/reputation-javascript-captcha-challlenge when HTTP_REQUEST { # Take the ip address for ip reputation/intelligence check from the XFF header if it comes from the whitelisted source ip addresses in data group "client_ip_class" if { [HTTP::header exists "X-Forwarded-For"] && [class match [IP::client_addr] equals "/Common/client_ip_class"] } { set trueIP [HTTP::header "X-Forwarded-For"] } else { set trueIP [IP::client_addr] } # Check if IP reputation is triggered and it is containing "Spam Sources" if { ([llength [IP::reputation $trueIP]] != 0) && ([IP::reputation $trueIP] contains "Spam Sources") }{ log local0. "The category is [IP::reputation $trueIP] from [IP::client_addr]" # Set the variable 1 or bulean true as to trigger ASM captcha or bot defense javascript set js_ch 1 } else { set js_ch 0 } # Custom response page just for testing if there is no real backend origin server for testing if {!$js_ch} { HTTP::respond 200 content { <html> <head> <title>Apology Page</title> </head> <body> We are sorry, but the site you are looking for is temporarily out of service<br> If you feel you have reached this page in error, please try again. </body> </html> } } } # when BOTDEFENSE_ACTION { # Trigger bot defense action javascript check for Spam Sources # if {$js_ch && (not ([BOTDEFENSE::reason] starts_with "passed browser challenge")) && ([BOTDEFENSE::action] eq "allow") }{ # BOTDEFENSE::action browser_challenge # } # } when ASM_REQUEST_DONE { # Trigger ASM captcha check only for users comming from Spam sources that have not already passed the captcha check (don't have the captcha cookie) if {$js_ch && [ASM::captcha_status] ne "correct"} { set res [ASM::captcha] if {$res ne "ok"} { log local0. "Cannot send captcha_challenge: \"$res\"" } } } Extra References: BOTDEFENSE::action ASM::captcha ASM::captcha_status
How to allow Request getting blocked due to Malformed JSON data
Hi Everyone, I've little trouble understanding how i can allow this request. Requests are getting blocked at WAF end due to "Malformed JSON data" violation (Illegal character encountered - json syntax error -" / ") Can i allow / (forward slash) character to provide exception for this violation & keep malformed json data blocking setting as it is. and how can i achieve this.
F5 ASM XML processing - policy name.
Hello, we have an error message in logs: ASM out of memory error: event code X89 Exceeded maximum memory assigned for XML processing we have already increased both variables total_xml_memory and additional_xml_memory_in_mb to 4GB but they still appear. What i wanted to ask if its possible to identify which ASM policy generates these logs? Or which policy is responsible for the most of xml memory usage? Is it possible to create an irule that will check this and assign custom violation with policy name (and request details) that raised this violation regarding xml memory? Because as it is now we would have to further increase additional xml memory variable and maybe its better to troubleshoot why is it getting exceeded in the first place?
Configuration of Pools VS LTM Policies and AWAF for Multiple Applications on Same Backend
I need your assistance and confirmation regarding a critical deployment involving F5 AWAF for internal applications. We have six internal applications accessible through the following URLs:https://gtt.XXX.ma:8443/gtt/;https://po.XXX.gov.ma:8443/po/;https://rpe.XXX.gov.ma/RPE/ https://sos.XXX.gov.ma/sos/;https://ant.XXX.gov.ma/ANT/;https://testcad.XXX.ma/testcad/. All these applications point to the same backend server at IP address 192.168.100.30. The DNS records for all of them resolve to the same IP address: 192.168.221.30. We are planning to configure two Virtual Servers using the same virtual IP address 192.168.200.20: One VS for applications running on port 443 ;One VS for applications running on port 8443: Each VS will have a dedicated LTM policy: One policy for the applications on port 443. Another policy for the applications on port 8443 . ach application must have its own dedicated AWAF (ASM) policy. Could you please confirm if this configuration is valid and supported by F5? Also we would like your recommendation on the following points: Should we configure a shared pool for all applications or a separate pool for each one?. Is the dual VS approach (with same IP but different ports) acceptable?. Is it the right approach to use LTM policies for routing requests and applying specific ASM policies per application? This deployment is critical and currently in preparation for production.
