Standard testing methodology for virtual patching

Hi,

Does anyone have any tips of recommendations for a standard way of testing/evaluating the effectiveness of a set of virtual patches? I've written a little python script that conditionally includes CRS rules for a given location and parameter(s) based on a vulnerability report generated by scanners like ZAP. Really, I can't think of much more beyond a before/after active scan with ZAP, and then a before/after scan with another tool that wasn't used in virtual patch creation. I know these virtual patches reduce the rate of false positives compared to just setting up CRS out-of-the-box, since they won't block requests for locations/parameters that aren't associated with some vulnerability. However, I can't think of a particularly useful way of showing this beyond picking a random vulnerable location and parameter and "attacking" it with words from a dictionary or book.

I've been to a couple of OWASP pages on the topic of virtual patching, but the testing methodology seems to be fairly manual and ad-hoc.

Thanks,
Kyle

_______________________________________________
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/