Difference between BT(Upgraded to ADD-ASMAWF ) vs BTA device
Hi All I have a running BT i15800 upgraded to ADD-ASMAWF device onsite, i want to add add another device, now i have a F5-BIG-BTA-i15800 option to add, i want to know is there any technichal difference between these two device ? should i consider anything for this matter or not ? Thanks
Incosistent forwarding of HTTP/2 connections with layered virtual
Hi, I'm using a layered virtual configuration: Tier1: Virtual applying SNI-Routing (only SSL persistence profile and LTM policy as described in https://www.devcentral.f5.com/kb/technicalarticles/sni-routing-with-big-ip/282018) Tier2: Virtual applies SSL termination and delivering the actual application, with the required profiles, iRules, .... If the required, an additional LTM policy is applied for URI-based routing and forwards to Tier3 VS. Tier3 (optional, if required): Virtual delivers specific applications, like microservices, usually no monolithical apps. This configuration is very robust and I'm working with it successfully since years. Important: The tier1 uses one single IP address and a single port. So all tier2 and tier3 virtuals MUST be externally available through the same IP address and port. Now I have to publish the first HTTP/2 applications over this concept and see strange behavior of the BIG-IP. User requests www.example.com. IP and port point to tier1 virtual. Tier1 LTM policy forwards the requests, based on the SNI, to tier2 virtuals "vs-int_www.example.com". Within www.example.com there are references to piwik.example.com, which is another tier2 virtual, behind my tier1 virtual. User requests piwik.example.com. IP and port point to tier1 virtual. Tier1 LTM policy forwards the requests to "vs-int_www.example.com" instead of "vs-int_piwik.example.com". Probably not based on SNI, but on the existing TCP connection. I'm afraid, that this bahvior is a result of HTTP/2, especially because of the persistent TCP connection. I assume that, because the connection ID (gathered from browser devtools) for requests to www.example.com and piwik.example.com is identical. From the perspective of the browser I wouldn't expect such a behavior, because the target hostname differs. I didn't configure HTTP/2 in full-proxy mode, as described in several articles. I've just enabled it on the client-side. I would be very happy for any input on that. Thanks in advance!
Loadbalancing WAF appliance using F5 LTM
Hello, I have 5 WAF devices that do not have HA and Loadsharing capabilities! (Please don't ask because I don't know myself :D) I want to balance the incoming traffic to them by placing an LTM in front of them. Unfortunately, my F5 equipment only has LTM capability and our company does not want to buy or upgrade the license for AWAF capability. In your opinion, does this method work and if it does, please tell me what is the most suitable mode for VirtualServer? Thankful
Remote log WAF based on number of violations
Hi All, At a customer I have configured a WAF to protect their web applications. Also configured a Logging Profile to send the logging to a remote server. This works fine. But customer would like to have some control on what is being send to the remote server and when. So the log of a violation that only occurs once (within a certain time frame) does not need to go to the remote log server. But a (identical) violation that occurs serveral times and has a high security violation needs to be send to the remote server I know I can configure a filter to include or exclude what is being send to the remote server. But can the F5 WAF send logs to a remote server based on number of events within a time frame? Hope you can help or point me to some useful links or documents. Regards, Martijn
Enterprise Security best practices with F5 WAF
When it comes to responsibilities of each layer in an enterprise (i.e. DMZ/ WAF, application, SoR etc), and provided F5 Advanced WAF is deployed on the DMZ, should other layers assume primary responsibility of mitigations supported out-of-the-box by F5 WAF. i.e. Provided that F5 WAF supports bot defense, should the the layer below (application layer) as well be hardened to defend against bots by implementing features like fingerprinting, validating remote IPs based on HTTP headers etc? Certain defense mechanisms - specifically in the case of bot defense, go beyond the expertise of typical application development and having application developers to harden their apps against bots will just add overhead IMO, however one can still argue it's agains defense in depth. What's the best practice and guideline F5 provides?
ASM instance creation
HI Team , I have to create an WAF instance similar to the one which is already available . I need help on creating the ASM policy similar to the one which is already used by other VIP . So my ASM policy name is ASM_NETWORK_443 and I have to create an identical policy with name ASM_DRNETWORK_443 . Is there any option to clone the ASM policy or export and import the policy and rename the Policy name ? Kindly help me on this .ltm policy asm_auto_l7_policy
Hi Experts, We are migrating WAF in an HA pair from i4800 to i5800, UCS is loaded successfully on new pair. while comparing the configurations i found on some policy on previous node the status was legacy and on new node the status is published. what's the difference please? the status is highlighted in red in below config. old node config ltm policy asm_auto_l7_policy__epsite.telenorbank.pk { controls { asm } last-modified 2023-12-08:23:19:30 requires { http } rules { default { actions { 1 { asm enable policy /Common/PTCL-cloud_WAF } } ordinal 1 } } status legacy strategy first-match7 } New Node config ltm policy asm_auto_l7_policy__epsite.telenorbank.pk { controls { asm } last-modified 2024-04-17:13:00:12 requires { http } rules { default { actions { 1 { asm enable policy /Common/PTCL-cloud_WAF } } ordinal 1 } } status published strategy first-match }
Deploying F5 WAF in front of Azure Web App Services
Does anyone know of a supported architecture for deploying an Azure F5 WAF in front of Azure Web App Services to handle the SSL and ASM services against traffic destined for an Azure Web App Service (App Service not just an app server running in Azure).
