Re: apache 2 mod_security iptables

Sorry to html mails but there is no chance to replace.

In the first mail '[email protected]' mentioned that he/she needs
for a solution for pfsense. You didn't read it, did you ? (Please don't
answer, it's obvious)

I never wanted to be the guy who have to argue with a Linux fanatic which
thinks systemd is a salvation. Nope, never and ever and God my witness.
God, i beg you to don't push me that hard, don't let me be that guy.

By the way, it must be a miracle to have a dc fw that has 51 record.
Glorious...

I sould have to thank you because you entertained me well. All of them are
just a joke but you know that you started this.

[email protected], i'm really sorry to bother you because honestly i
just wanted to share something that could help you. Usually, i never poke
or push people to argue with me.



On Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 18:20 Reindl Harald <[email protected]> wrote:

> firsat: may i ask you why you respond with html to plaintext mails?
>
> Am 26.12.20 um 16:00 schrieb jin&hitman&Barracuda:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not here to argue about iptables (or ipsets) and i did not say that
> > every and each address needs a iptables rule. I just said, a lot easier
> > than *iptables*. At the time ipsets introduced, there was some design
> > flaw like;
> >
> > - ipsets did not support to load host (/32) address and networks into
> > single table. It needs to be load i as separate tables
>
> not true! "Type: hash:net" has no problem with /32
>
> if you use "hash:ip" but want to mix: a fool with a tool is still a fool
>
> --------------------------
>
> real-world ipset from a datacenter firewall
>
> Name: BLOCKED_IPV4
> Type: hash:net
> Header: family inet hashsize 1024 maxelem 512
> Size in memory: 3520
> Number of entries: 51
>
> Members:
> 3.112.171.163
> 18.130.64.226
> 31.28.163.0/24
> 31.28.170.0/24
>
> --------------------------
>
> > - under same conditions and same hardware, ipsets was need more time to
> > load/reload sets/tables than pf
>
> how often do you reboot?
>
> > - When you need to use a file to load sample of addresses, you need to
> > specifically design that file because ipset doesn't support to load a
> > list of address from a simple text file. Each and every line should be
> > start with "add" key word and should continue with "<ipset_name>" and
> > "ip address". Also you have to add ipset create stanza on the very
> > beginning of that file. On the contrary, pf can load address from a
> > simple file and yet there is no need to add anything to that file or
> > divide address list into host address and network address.
>
> hell, that's what save/restore is for
>
> a) ipset -file /etc/sysconfig/ipset restore
>     one time at reboot before restore
>     iptables/iptables-nft
> b) ipset -file /etc/sysconfig/ipset save
>     each time you made changes which should
>     survive a reboot
>
> and when you want to load from a textfile you just loop trough the
> textfile and so "ipset add IPSET_NAME VALUE" which is a 1-liner if you want
>
> > I did not use ipsets after than rhel6, there must be some improvements
>
> RHEL6 is a long time ago
> AFAIK you needed redirection instead -file to begin with
>
> > but i doubt that it will be useful as pf does.
>
> jesus christ......
>
> and even if PF has some advantages nobody will switch to openbsd because
> of that and if it's only because there is no systemd, initscripts are crap
>
> > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 12:46 PM Reindl Harald <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     Am 26.12.20 um 10:11 schrieb jin&hitman&Barracuda:
> >      > Hi,
> >      >
> >      > I've used failban for a bunch of smtp servers and it didn't go
> >     well. But
> >      > there is another project (crowdsec) and i guess that it is worth
> to
> >      > mention here. The project have many features which failban don't
> >     have. I
> >      > haven't try it yet but i will soon. May be you'd like to look at
> it.
> >      >
> >      > Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go -
> >      > https://github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec
> >     <https://github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec>
> >      > <https://github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec
> >     <https://github.com/crowdsecurity/crowdsec>>
> >      >
> >      > By the way, while i was using failban, i had a script (which i
> >     wrote) to
> >      > add/remove ip adresses to openbsd firewall which is a lot easier
> >     than
> >      > iptables.
> >
> >     you don't write iptables rules for each and every address
> >
> >     https://ipset.netfilter.org/ <https://ipset.netfilter.org/> is your
> >     friend
> >     https://ipset.netfilter.org/ipset.man.html
> >     <https://ipset.netfilter.org/ipset.man.html>
> >
> >     * you have *one* iptables rule with the ipset match
> >     * one command adds or removes and ip to the set
> >     * it's dramatically faster -> hash-table
> >     * you can block millions of ips without performance drop
> >
> >      > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020, 11:37 Jeffery Wilkins
> >     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >      > <mailto:[email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> >      >
> >      >     im looking for some people who host http servers
> >     (apache/nginx) and who
> >      >     are familiar with mod_security and iptables firewalls
> >      >     the setup that I am after is if an IP address hits my website
> and
> >      >     does a
> >      >     typical vuln scan my web server sends them back no response
> >     and they
> >      >     silently get added to an iptables ipset blacklist that lasts
> >     for 1 week
> >      >     I already have mod_security (OWASP RULES) on my apache 2
> >     server at
> >      >     (192.168.2.10) and a pfsense style firewall at (192.168.2.1)
> >      >     kind of like a web server honeypot if you will
> >      >     my current setup is already pretty powerful if you even send
> >     a simple
> >      >     TCP SYN packet to port 21,22 or even 23 you automatically get
> >     added to
> >      >     my routers firewall and dropped for 7 days for both in and
> >     outbound
> >      >     forgive me for asking alot but I really want to buckle down
> >     on these
> >      >     stupid automated vuln scanners and keep them off my network
> >      >     I have already looked into things like fail2ban but that only
> >     protects
> >      >     the webserver itself and does not integrate with my routers
> >     firewall at
> >      >     all protecting the network as a whole
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     mod-security-users mailing list
> >     [email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>
> >     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users
> >     <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users>
> >     Commercial ModSecurity Rules and Support from Trustwave's SpiderLabs:
> >     http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/
> >     <http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/>
> >     http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/
> >     <http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mod-security-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users
> Commercial ModSecurity Rules and Support from Trustwave's SpiderLabs:
> http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/
> http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/
>

_______________________________________________
mod-security-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mod-security-users
Commercial ModSecurity Rules and Support from Trustwave's SpiderLabs:
http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/rules/
http://www.modsecurity.org/projects/commercial/support/