←back to thread

603 points scalewithlee | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.414s | source
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 #
Wowfunhappy ◴[] No.43794339[source]
Maybe it wouldn't make a difference, but if I was the IT person telling users they have to change their passwords every 90 days, I would 100% include a line in the email blaming the insurance company.
replies(2): >>43796152 #>>43799001 #
foobarchu ◴[] No.43796152[source]
I'm not in an IT dept (developer instead), but I'd bet money that would get you a thorough dressing down by an executive involved with the insurance. That sort of blaming goes over well with those at the bottom of the hierarchy, and poorly with those at the top.
replies(1): >>43796941 #
1. Wowfunhappy ◴[] No.43796941[source]
The insurance people are not a part of the company, so I'm not sure who would be offended.

I wouldn't be mean about it. I'm imagining adding a line to the email such as:

> (Yes, I know this is annoying, but it's required by our insurance company.)

What is the insurance company going to do, jack up our rates because we accurately stated what their policy was?

replies(1): >>43802508 #
2. int_19h ◴[] No.43802508[source]
The problem is that this particular insurance company was picked by someone who does work in yours.