Skip to main content

mod rewrite - Preventing vulnerability scripts from scanning apache server



Quick question for you all - fairly frequently in my httpd logs I see things like this:



66.11.122.194 - - [29/Jan/2010:11:06:44 +0000] "GET HTTP/1.1 HTTP/1.1" 400 418 "-" "Toata dragostea mea pentru diavola"
66.11.122.194 - - [29/Jan/2010:11:06:44 +0000] "GET /roundcube//bin/msgimport HTTP/1.1" 404 417 "-" "Toata dragostea mea pentru diavola"

66.11.122.194 - - [29/Jan/2010:11:06:44 +0000] "GET /rc//bin/msgimport HTTP/1.1" 404 413 "-" "Toata dragostea mea pentru diavola"
66.11.122.194 - - [29/Jan/2010:11:06:44 +0000] "GET /mss2//bin/msgimport HTTP/1.1" 404 415 "-" "Toata dragostea mea pentru diavola"
66.11.122.194 - - [29/Jan/2010:11:06:45 +0000] "GET /mail//bin/msgimport HTTP/1.1" 404 415 "-" "Toata dragostea mea pentru diavola"
66.11.122.194 - - [29/Jan/2010:11:06:45 +0000] "GET /mail2//bin/msgimport HTTP/1.1" 404 416 "-" "Toata dragostea mea pentru diavola"
66.11.122.194 - - [29/Jan/2010:11:06:45 +0000] "GET /roundcubemail//bin/msgimport HTTP/1.1" 404 420 "-" "Toata dragostea mea pentru diavola"
...


You get the idea, a vulnerability scanning script. As I don't install my web apps to standard or even remotely named installs I nearly always return 404s, but it is still irritating to watch. So my question is, is there a way to detect/mitigate such attacks, perhaps using mod_rewrite and known blocklists etc? Or is this something web server admins simply have to put up with?




Thanks.


Answer



you can use mod_security or other web application firewalls (waf). this way the request still hit your webserver, but mod_security will filter out the request which are marked as suspicious.



there are different possibilities to setup a waf:




  • on each webserver

  • on a central reverse proxy




the best solution depends much on your setup, so there is no general answer. but the docs should help you to decide what solution to take.



one more point to consider:
a waf is adding some more complexity to your system, so be sure whether you want to use it or not.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?
Post a Comment
Read more

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,
Post a Comment
Read more

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able
Post a Comment
Read more