Forum Discussion

madi_56757's avatar
madi_56757
Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
Aug 25, 2011

Apache Killer

hello all,

 

 

I need help for following rule

 

We need an irule to avoid an exploit on Apache

 

 

 

Apache syntax

 

 

 

RewriteEngine On

 

RewriteCond %{REQUEST_METHOD} ^(HEAD|GET) [NC]

 

RewriteCond %{HTTP:Range} ([0-9]*-[0-9]*)(\s*,\s*[0-9]*-[0-9]*)+

 

RewriteRule .* - [F]

 

 

 

application delivery
dev
devops
iRules

14 Replies

Sort By
  • dlg_23340's avatar
    dlg_23340
    Icon for Cirrus rankCirrus
    Aug 25, 2011
    
when HTTP_REQUEST {
  if { [HTTP::header exists "Range"] and ([HTTP::header "Range"] matches_regex {(,.*?){40,}}) } {
    log local0. " Range attack CVE-2011-3192 detected from [IP::client_addr].  [llength [split [HTTP::header "Range"], ","]] ranges requested."
    drop
  }
}
  • madi_56757's avatar
    madi_56757
    Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
    Aug 25, 2011
    it seem to work

     

     

    thank you very much for your help

     

     

    our first tests looking good and now we start an power test

     

     

    best regrads

     

    Markus
  • dlg_23340's avatar
    dlg_23340
    Icon for Cirrus rankCirrus
    Aug 26, 2011
    After another announcement from the apache folks and little help from smp offline, we have this: 

    when HTTP_REQUEST {
  HTTP::header remove Request-Range
  if { [HTTP::header exists "Range"] and ([HTTP::header "Range"] matches_regex {(,.*?){40,}}) } {
    log local0. " Range attack CVE-2011-3192 detected from [IP::client_addr].  [llength [split [HTTP::header "Range"], ","]] ranges requested."
    drop
    return
  }
}
  • zero_39359's avatar
    zero_39359
    Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
    Aug 29, 2011
    May I know is there any difference for"(,.*?){40,}" on irule and "(,.*?){5,}" on CVE-2011-3192, it seem the counter is difference, your irule is count for 40 and the CVE-2011-3192 is count for 5 range, thanks!
  • dlg_23340's avatar
    dlg_23340
    Icon for Cirrus rankCirrus
    Aug 29, 2011
    zero, the 5 from the CVE seemed too restrictive, given the legitimate uses of the Range header. It ends up we could withstand quite a few simultaneous attacks at 40, so it seemed like a good balance between blocking bad traffic and allowing good traffic.

    The CVE also says:

       The number 5 is arbitrary. Several 10's should not be an issue and may be
   required for sites which for example serve PDFs to very high end eReaders
   or use things such complex http based video streaming.

    Between testing and the CVE, we're comfortable with 40. ymmv.

  • madi_56757's avatar
    madi_56757
    Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
    Aug 30, 2011

    hi,

     

    concerning the newest rule

     

     

     

    when HTTP_REQUEST

     

    { HTTP::header remove Request-Range

     

    if { [HTTP::header exists "Range"] and ([HTTP::header "Range"] matches_regex {(,.*?){40,}}) }

     

    { log local0. " Range attack CVE-2011-3192 detected from [IP::client_addr] to [HTTP::host]. [llength [split [HTTP::header "Range"], ","]] ranges requested." drop return } }

     

     

     

    I got following error

     

    Operation not supported (line 1) invoked from within "HTTP::header remove Request-Range"

     

     

    we are using a version of 9.4.7

     

    interestingly it is possible to apply the rule and if we are testing it with a range more then 40 it works!

     

    Range attack CVE-2011-3192 detected from XXX. 1302 ranges requested.

     

     

    any ideas

     

     

    thanks for any statments

     

     

    madi
  • dlg_23340's avatar
    dlg_23340
    Icon for Cirrus rankCirrus
    Aug 30, 2011
    madi, check to see that you don't have any HTTP::redirect directives before this iRule. We saw the same error, and it appears that modifying headers after issuing a redirect causes the behavior you are seeing.
  • Michael_Yates's avatar
    Michael_Yates
    Icon for Nimbostratus rankNimbostratus
    Sep 01, 2011
    An iRule that we decided to go with had a few minor alterations.

    We decided not to drop the request just in case this was a valid request (far out possibility I know). Instead we decided to strip the range off and serve the request and alter the logging to add the URL Host Value into the logging request (in case you have to use the same defensive iRule on multiple Virtual Servers on the same BIG-IP, you will know or be able to track down which one got "attacked").

    Thank you for the research and iRule dlg and smp. Came in handy 🙂 

     
when HTTP_REQUEST {
if { [HTTP::header exists "Range"] and ([HTTP::header "Range"] matches_regex {(,.*?){40,}}) } {
log local0. " Range attack CVE-2011-3192 detected from [IP::client_addr] on Host [HTTP::host].  [llength [split [HTTP::header "Range"], ","]] ranges requested."
HTTP::header remove Range
return
}
}