Most active commenters
  • pjmlp(3)
  • betaby(3)

←back to thread

601 points scalewithlee | 18 comments | | HN request time: 0.427s | source | bottom
Show context
matt_heimer ◴[] No.43794013[source]
The people configuring WAF rules at CDNs tend to do a poor job understanding sites and services that discuss technical content. It's not just Cloudflare, Akamai has the same problem.

If your site discusses databases then turning on the default SQL injection attack prevention rules will break your site. And there is another ruleset for file inclusion where things like /etc/hosts and /etc/passwd get blocked.

I disagree with other posts here, it is partially a balance between security and usability. You never know what service was implemented with possible security exploits and being able to throw every WAF rule on top of your service does keep it more secure. Its just that those same rulesets are super annoying when you have a securely implemented service which needs to discuss technical concepts.

Fine tuning the rules is time consuming. You often have to just completely turn off the ruleset because when you try to keep the ruleset on and allow the use-case there are a ton of changes you need to get implemented (if its even possible). Page won't load because /etc/hosts was in a query param? Okay, now that you've fixed that, all the XHR included resources won't load because /etc/hosts is included in the referrer. Now that that's fixed things still won't work because some random JS analytics lib put the URL visited in a cookie, etc, etc... There is a temptation to just turn the rules off.

replies(14): >>43794129 #>>43794136 #>>43794174 #>>43794203 #>>43794226 #>>43794234 #>>43794368 #>>43794502 #>>43795948 #>>43796540 #>>43798420 #>>43800243 #>>43804110 #>>43805902 #
mjr00 ◴[] No.43794226[source]
> I disagree with other posts here, it is partially a balance between security and usability.

And economics. Many people here are blaming incompetent security teams and app developers, but a lot of seemingly dumb security policies are due to insurers. If an insurer says "we're going to jack up premiums by 20% unless you force employees to change their password once every 90 days", you can argue till you're blue in the face that it's bad practice, NIST changed its policy to recommend not regularly rotating passwords over a decade ago, etc., and be totally correct... but they're still going to jack up premiums if you don't do it. So you dejectedly sigh, implement a password expiration policy, and listen to grumbling employees who call you incompetent.

It's been a while since I've been through a process like this, but given how infamous log4shell became, it wouldn't surprise me if insurers are now also making it mandatory that common "hacking strings" like /etc/hosts, /etc/passwd, jndi:, and friends must be rejected by servers.

replies(12): >>43794339 #>>43794401 #>>43794476 #>>43794485 #>>43794676 #>>43794868 #>>43795485 #>>43797735 #>>43799077 #>>43799776 #>>43800796 #>>43802890 #
betaby ◴[] No.43794676[source]
> but a lot of seemingly dumb security policies are due to insurers.

I keep hearing that often on HN, however I've personally never seen seen such demands from insurers. I would greatly appreciate if one share such insurance policy. Insurance policies are not trade secrets and OK to be public. I can google plenty of commercial cars insurance policies for example.

replies(4): >>43795927 #>>43796043 #>>43796220 #>>43799059 #
1. simonw ◴[] No.43796043[source]
I found an example!

https://retail.direct.zurich.ch/resources/definition/product...

Questionnaire Zurich Cyber Insurance

Question 4.2: "Do you have a technically enforced password policy that ensures use of strong passwords and that passwords are changed at least quarterly?"

Since this is an insurance questionnaire, presumably your answers to that question affect the rates you get charged?

(Found that with the help of o4-mini https://chatgpt.com/share/680bc054-77d8-8006-88a1-a6928ab99a...)

replies(3): >>43796612 #>>43797794 #>>43799962 #
2. kiitos ◴[] No.43796612[source]
Directly following is question 4.3: "Are users always prevented from installing programs on end-user devices?"

Totally bonkers stuff.

replies(2): >>43796821 #>>43797188 #
3. 9x39 ◴[] No.43796821[source]
A trend for corporate workstations is moving closer to a phone with a locked-down app store, with all programs from a company software repo.

Eliminating everything but a business's industry specific apps, MS Office, and some well-known productivity tools slashes support calls (no customization!) and frustrates cyberattacks to some degree when you can't deploy custom executables.

replies(3): >>43797202 #>>43798768 #>>43798966 #
4. pjmlp ◴[] No.43797188[source]
This is standard practice for years in big corporations.

You install software via ticket requests to IT, and devs might have admin rights, but not root, and only temporary.

This is nothing new though, back in the timesharing days, where we would connect to the development server, we only got as much rights as required for the ongoing development workflows.

Hence why PCs felt so liberating.

replies(1): >>43797808 #
5. serial_dev ◴[] No.43797202{3}[source]
I don’t think locking down slashes support calls because you will now receive support requests anytime someone wants to install something and actually have a good business reason to do so.
replies(1): >>43797459 #
6. 9x39 ◴[] No.43797459{4}[source]
Consider the ones you don't get: ones where PCs have to be wiped from customization gone wrong, politics and productivity police calls - "Why is Bob gaming?", "Why is Alice on Discord?".

It's about the transition from artisanal hand-configuration to mass-produced fleet standards, and diverting exceptional behavior and customizations somewhere else.

replies(2): >>43798072 #>>43799380 #
7. betaby ◴[] No.43797794[source]
Password policy is something rather common, and 'standard' firewalls. Question is in the context of of WAF as in the article. WAF requirement is something more invasive to say the least.
8. betaby ◴[] No.43797808{3}[source]
It's a standard practice. And at $CURENT_JOB it's driven by semi-literate security folks, definitely not insurance.
replies(1): >>43797948 #
9. pjmlp ◴[] No.43797948{4}[source]
Insurance and liability concerns drive the security folks.

Just wait when more countries keep adopting cybersecurity laws for companies liabilities when software doesn't behave, like in any other engineering industry.

replies(1): >>43799134 #
10. bornfreddy ◴[] No.43798072{5}[source]
Coupled with protection against executing unknown executables this also actually helps with security. It's not like (most) users know which exe is potentially a trojan.
11. michaelt ◴[] No.43798768{3}[source]
Then the users start using cloud webapps to do everything. I can't install a PDF-to-excel converter, so I'll use this online service to do it.

At first glance that might seem a poor move for corporate information security. But crucially, the security of cloud webapps is not the windows sysadmins' problem - buck successfully passed.

12. bigfatkitten ◴[] No.43798966{3}[source]
That's why this it's been a requirement for Australian government agencies for about 15 years.

In around 2011, the Defence Signals Directorate (now the Australian Signals Directorate) went through and did an analysis of all of the intrusions they had assisted with over the previous few years. It turned out that app whitelisting, patching OS vulns, patching client applications (Office, Adobe Reader, browsers), and some basis permission management would have prevented something like 90% of them.

The "Top 4" was later expanded to the Essential Eight which includes additional elements such as backups, MFA, disabling Office macros and using hardened application configs.

https://www.cyber.gov.au/resources-business-and-government/e...

13. stefan_ ◴[] No.43799134{5}[source]
Hello, the security folks in those companies made those up. "cyber insurance" is hogwash. That entire branch has been taken over by useless middle manager types who know to type up checklists in Word but have no understanding of anything.
replies(2): >>43799649 #>>43801191 #
14. Aeolun ◴[] No.43799380{5}[source]
If you don’t want exceptional behavior, that’s exactly what you’ll get. In more than one way.

Alice is on Discord because half of the products the company uses now give more or less direct access to their devs through Discord

15. blangk ◴[] No.43799649{6}[source]
Are you arguing non technical people should have root access to company owned and managed PCs? Because I can tell you from experience, that will result in a very bad time at some point. Even if it is just for the single end user and not the wider org.
16. smithkl42 ◴[] No.43799962[source]
We've been asked that question before on security questionnaires, and our answer has always been, "Forcing users to change passwords regularly is widely regarded as a very bad security practice, and we don't engage in bad security practices." We've never had anyone complain.
replies(1): >>43802593 #
17. pjmlp ◴[] No.43801191{6}[source]
As someone that happens to also be one of those clueless people when assuming DevOps roles in consulting projects, it is a very bad day when some clever user is responsible for a security breach.

A breach can turn out into enough money being lost, in credibility, canceled orders, or lawsuits, big enough to close shop, or having to fire those that thought security rules were dumb.

Also anyone with security officer title, in many countries has legal responsibilities when something goes wrong, so when they sign off software deliverables that go wrong, is their signature on the approval.

18. austhrow743 ◴[] No.43802593[source]
I've never had a complaint about anything I put in to a form requesting a quote for insurance. I just get the quote back. Did you write that in the comment expecting an insurance salesperson to call you up and argue passwords with you? Call their back office and say "hey this guy says our password question is crap, get our best guys on it!"?

I just cant imagine any outcome other than it was translated to just a "no" and increased your premium over what it would have otherwise been.